Yes, but it was still funny.
I'm always going to picture you with four arms now.
Posted on 12/18/2010 11:33:01 AM PST by Jim Robinson
A couple more posters got zotted today.
Guess we need another reminder:
If you support the homosexual agenda you are anti-constitution and you'll get the zot from FR. Homosexuals already have the same "rights" as everyone else. God did not grant and the constitution does not guarantee homosexuals any special rights. In fact, the homosexual agenda is a full frontal attack on OUR God-given, constitutionally protected rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, Life, Family, Marriage, Pursuit of Happiness, etc.
I don't want it on FR and won't have it on FR.
Like abortion, if you support the homosexual agenda on FR, your account here will be zotted!
Don't like it? Tough frickin Shinola! Get the hell OFF this conservative site!!
You really need to look into an adult literacy class, your remedial skills coupled with your paranoia is obviously quite debilitating.
Here's what I wrote, you may notice that it makes no mention of time:
I would tell you to make a note of it, but hopefully that won't be necessary.
I support the FR position on homosexuals in the military.
Yet you denounce actual supporters as trolls.
Tell me something else matters.
Sure, I still don't see where you've apolgized to little jeremiah and others you've belittled without being courteous enough to ping them. You should do that right away.
:-D
LOL! I fully accept the moral absolutes enshrined in the Judeo Christian tradition, as they are indeed remarkably similar to those in the Vedas as well as in Buddhist tradition as well. They are universal, they are absolute, and humanity needs to follow them or hurtle into the abyss.
Besides studying the Vedas I also read the Bible and derive inspiration therefrom.
You have a problem with the above?
*****************************
Really? I'll take your advice!
So, troll, is there anything about Free Republic that you like?
No, sir. I just don't happen to think private, non-violent, sexual behavior is immoral. It might be unwise or even self-destructive, but in a free country such as ours, we do own our lives and bodies, after all.
Now, if I thought it were all right in one situation, but not in another; or for one person or group, but not for another - that would imply I was a moral relativist.
As to the "lifestyle" at issue there are two different elements: identity and behavior. They are not the same thing. Homosexuals do not choose their identity. Years of empirical evidence can attest to that fact: it just happens, for whatever reason(s). As to behavior: that is very much a choice, and it involves a range of possible interactions, some far safer than others.
Finally, your drug example is not truly a fair analogy because use of crystal meth is always dangerous, whereas certain common practices between people are not. But to answer your question: yes, I would tell them it was dangerous and that they ought to stop. And it is not a hateful thing to talk to gay people that way, either. Many of them do still need to be encouraged to abandon practices that are shortening their lives, as you rightly note.
There is a vital difference between respecting a person's rights and privacy on one hand, and being compassionately honest with them, on the other.
Make no mistake, the ultimate goal of the left is to criminalize the act of speaking out against what is “wrong.” They don’t want us to teach our children what is right and wrong. They want us to teach them that turning a blind eye to that which is immoral or unethical is called “tolerance!”
Liberal utopia: Standing up for that which is moral constitutes a hate crime.
Your language continues to be offensive.
Wagglebee is Catholic. :)
That sounds a lot like moral relativism to me.
Homosexuals do not choose their identity.
Nonsense.
Years of empirical evidence can attest to that fact: it just happens, for whatever reason(s).
All of the studies have consisted of "data" where homosexuals declare that they have always "felt" that way. Further examination invariably establishes that they were abused and forced into their lifestyle.
As to behavior: that is very much a choice, and it involves a range of possible interactions, some far safer than others.
Even prior to the advent of AIDS there was evidence of homosexuals dying at a younger age.
But to answer your question: yes, I would tell them it was dangerous and that they ought to stop. And it is not a hateful thing to talk to gay people that way, either. Many of them do still need to be encouraged to abandon practices that are shortening their lives, as you rightly note.
Thank you for that.
There is a vital difference between respecting a person's rights and privacy on one hand, and being compassionately honest with them, on the other.
I don't think anyone is seriously advocating telling homosexuals what they can and can't do in private, but tolerance is a far cry from approval.
There, spruced it up for ya.
So....what? What does that mean? Are you on the thread to argue with people that you don’t like? Why? You don’t like cental_va. You don’t like little jeremiah. You don’t like wagglebee......don’t you think this is a little strange? And juvenile? You don’t like them. Ok. Find someone that you do like and talk to them. On another thread. I’m still not getting what you hope to accomplish. Or what you’re doing. If I don’t care for someone, I leave. And there ARE posters that I avoid.
He has no clue....
I think his little banned friends at some anti-freeper site are feeding him “info” only he got wagglebee and me confused.
I guess they think that me being a Hindu will make everyone here hate me.
HAHA!
That's certainly not what the founders of this republic believed. They believed it to be self-evident that such title belonged to our Creator.
Well, God does. And He condemns it for the sin it is.
It might be unwise or even self-destructive, but in a free country such as ours, we do own our lives and bodies, after all.
No man is an island.
Now, if I thought it were all right in one situation, but not in another; or for one person or group, but not for another - that would imply I was a moral relativist.
But you are because you just qualified the behavior in the previous paragraph as *private*. That implies that you think that *public* , non-violent, sexual behavior IS immoral. That would make it moral in certain circumstances and immoral in others.
Yup, that's moral relativism.
Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. Alexander Hamilton
However there was a troll about three and a half years ago named Locke_2007 that went to an anti-FReeper site and denounced me as the "Grand Inquisitor" of Free Republic. I kind of liked the sound of it.
Yes, but it was still funny.
I'm always going to picture you with four arms now.
Proctologists agree.
The butt damage alone puts their kids through college.
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.