Posted on 08/14/2010 4:09:18 AM PDT by GonzoII
“How ironic to use that choice of words on a pro-homosexuality thread.”
What is ironic about it?
Obama is planning to bring back the marriage penalty for taxes, so there won't be any benefit for that perspective.
My point is the percentage of people that have engaged in homosexual behavior is far greater than 2% Espically since the stigma is far less among women and actually encouraged by heterosexual men.
For example you can murder someone and have sinned.. renounced that sin and become a priest. You can turn from sin... I’m sure you realize that.
So yes.. you can have homosexual behavior but not be certified homosexual(meaning a commitment to relationships with the opposite sex).
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites—in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
— Edmund Burke
Exactly my point. Morality is subjective in all of us. Most of us don’t committ the major stuff. Murder, rape, child molstation. But we all committ some sort of sin. Homosexuals have decided religious or not that this part of their life is not amoral. They are wrong, but, that being said it doesn’t mean they are completely amoral. Not all homosexuals are capable of rape, murder, and child molestation.
Taking his higher than thou point is ironically pointless. We can defend meaning without resorting to nonsense. Even athesists share some sort of morality with Christians. Maybe Athesists agree that they shouldn’t murder someone for example. Those believes are clearly more rooted in socialital norms than they are in religious beliefs but they exist none the less.
A bout a week ago, Michael Savage gave a great monologue about the danger of so-called “gay marriage”.
He reminded his listeners that a longtime Marxist goal has been the destruction of the “bourgeois” institution of marriage.
How sweet...
“How sweet...”
Oh brother...
I said people with NO morals would do that.
You said:
Taking his higher than thou point is ironically pointless. We can defend meaning without resorting to nonsense.
What do you mean? What do you mean by nonsense?
Civil unions are just opening the door to marriage, and homosexual activists have admitted this. Any legal stuff that civil unions do can be done already. Other than government recognition of some kind of “marriage lite” for health or other benefits.
““Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites...”
Burke could not fathom that the colonies would create and materially support the government we have today. He would most certainly judge each and every one of us as not qualified for civil liberty - and he’d be right. We don’t deserve it (and we presently don’t have it as they did then).
The historic quotes from important minds of the American Revolution period are good and relevant - but they had a clean slate, having vanquished tyranny that was much less intrusive than the government we have today.
They couldn’t build America under the King of England. They did it without him.
Well now! THERE'S something to brag about! You must be so proud.
” Anyway, this thread is only tangentially about “gay” marriage; it is about the importance or non-importance of normalizing homosexual behavior and most important - the establishment of “gay people” as a separate identity, with special protection under the law, that everyone else must bow to and accomodate “
That is correct!
“Well now! THERE’S something to brag about! You must be so proud.”
A tough, humorless crowd today. If you don’t like my humor, why don’t you grab a beer, pop open and slide down the chute and go home.
There, was that funnier?
So, are you ant-Christian too?
BTW, both Jews and Christians hold similar social beliefs extending over several millenia, commonly referred to Judeo-Christian ethics and values. These values include opposition to abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, court ordered killing of helpless individuals, etc.
So do you think it is wrong for our government to take positions on these Judeo-Christian issues?
No. He wrote some laws in 1777 - 78 and would have changed it to castration. The death penalty held.
Have a nice night, uh, little richard.
“Have a nice night, uh, little richard.”
.....I’ll be here all week. Try the lasagna.
Any government - large, small, representative, direct democracy, ruled by nobility, etc will be miserable and ultimately devolve into tyranny when not founded upon basic moral absolutes that are eternal.
It’s quite simple. Even a simple mind can understand this.
(Why will it devolved into tyranny? Because without morality power becomes the only authority.)
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.