Posted on 02/22/2002 6:17:19 AM PST by ArGee
Q: Why should society be involved in personal issues such as (marriage, drug use, homosexual sex, etc.)?
A:People exist in society not by convenience but because people are social by nature. We do not exist well in a vacuum. Part of the function of our society is to maintain norms of interaction that will allow us to survive. We call these norms our culture. Historically, cultures must be based on concrete fundamental truths. They can't be based on the whims of the moment or they will fall apart. In fact, historically, those cultures that have lasted the longest were based on concrete fundamental truths and they fell only when the societies stopped enforcing those rules. To date, only one culture in all of human history has been able to reconstruct itself after it fell, and that was because it returned to those concrete fundamental truths and cherished them until it could regain its land. I'm talking about Jewish culture and Israel.
America was founded on concrete fundamental truths. France was not. Both governments had similar ideals, but America had a culture to sustain those ideals and the government has been working here for over 250 years. You can't say the same for France because their culture is not based on concrete fundamental truths. If America lets those truths go, we will go the way of France, which is headed for the same fate as Babylon or Ninevah or Rome or any other ancient culture.
Q: Why should society care what individuals do?
A: If decent human beings don't stand up and fight for our foundational culture, our republic will be lost, because as moral values are tossed aside, the government will be there to regulate the behavior produced by those loss of morals. A climate of immorality only gives the government an opportunity to expand.
Q: Social and/or legal discouragement of homosexuality won't reduce the occurance of SAD
A: If the practice of homosexuality is shunned people would be more eager to overcome the defects in their lives than succumb to them. SAD is curable, you just have to want to be normal again. Unfortunately in today's society we support these SADs in their sickness giving them no motivation to be cured.
Society is essentially enabling the deviants to live a comfortable life as a deviant instead of encouraging them to seek a cure.
Q: If gays were allowed to marry like normal people then the negatives (promiscuity, disease, domestic violence) associated with existing gay (male) lifestyle would decrease.
A: A 'monogomous' SAD couple were responsible for the rape and torture of Jesse Dirkhising. The incidence of monogomy in the SAD culture is extrememly small. What makes you think that a piece of paper will cause people to be monogomous when they spend all their time now being promiscuous? The only thing that will stop SAD promiscuity is SADs getting healed.
Q: Why should evidence that one can discourage welfare dependence by making welfare unavailable tell us anything about whether we can discourage homosexuality by keeping marriage unavailable?
A: They are both behaviors. Make the results of the behavior unpleasant and the behavior will eventually go away. The problem now is that SADs are coddled rather than forced to face their perversion and it's results. Therefore they choose to remain in the SAD lifestyle instead of seeking a cure.
NOTE: This isn't just a SAD issue. This applies to all sexual deviancy.
Q: Why would allowing 'gay' marriage mean allowing other perversions to marry? Leaving aside that marriages to dogs or dead people or children cannot be consensual, and are therefore not comparable to the mutual commitment of two adult humans (of the same or different sexes), why can't we just say "yes" to one and "no" to the others?
A: The union of two men or two women is not comparable to the union of one man to one woman as the SAD union has no potential to produce children (which as we all know are the future of our society). So right now our laws do say "yes" to one and "no" to the other. We say yes to beneficial marriages (those that have the potential to produce new members of society) and no to detrimental marriages (those that have no potential to produce). Rather than start down the slippery slope of allowing all perversions to marry lets just say no to all of them.
(Note that inability to have children due to impotence etc in a normal couple is usually not known until after the marriage. The institution must support the potential to have children which ONLY male-female *normal* marriages provide)
Q: Comparing 'gay' marriage to bestial (pedophilial, necrophilial etc) marriage is not a valid comparison.
A: If we break the definition to include one detrimental type of union we will eventually have to break it to allow all of them. Look at how the pedophiles are lobbying the APA to be delisted as a disease (or they may already have been) they are about 15-20 years behind the SADs. History shows us that compromise on our core values always results in the death of those values.
After all pedophilial marriage is not comparable to beastial marriage because its two humans involved. And bestial marriage is not comparable to necrophilial marriage becasue two living things are involved. Etc ad nauseum. There will always be a reason why the next favorite perversion is somehow better than the second next favorite perversion. Let's just sidestep the whole thing and disallow all the perversions (which is what our laws do now)
Q: But I also think that gays can only be more likely to behave in manner more supportive of good social order if society treats them as if it expects such responsible behavior.
A: You are correct. The practice of homosexual sex is not now, nor will it ever be, 'responsible behavior'. Therefore we must expect, and make that expectation known, that the SADs seek a cure to their behavior.
Q: Shutting gays out of "respectable" society and its institutions only encourages rebellious and self-destructive behavior.
A: The problem is that SADs are not shut out of respectable society. You can't fire someone just because they are a pervert. You can't kick them out of rental property you own, you can't socially penalize them in any way. If we did, we'd have less SADs. The practice of homosexual sex is not now, nor will it ever be, "responsible behavior"
Q: Homosexuality is genetic. Therefore it's ok
A: No study has ever found a 'gay' gene. In fact studies using identical twins have shown that there is no genetic component to SAD.
For the sake of argument however, lets assume that a 'gay' gene is found. SAD then falls into the area of other genetic diseases like alcoholism. Just because an alcoholic is genetically predisposed to the disease should society excuse his self-damaging behavior and let him drink as much as he wants? NO! Society demands that he control his behavior and stay sober in order to be a member of respectable society. Drunks aren't welcome in most places including most places of business.
Likewise, if SAD is genetic, the SADs should be shut out of respectable society until they control their behavior. This includes shutting them out of any place where children or respectable people will be. Socially repugnant behavior is socially repugnent whether it is genetic or not.
Q: Can you prove that homosexual behavior is harmful?
A: To individuals? The medical evidence is overwhelming. To society? The only way to "prove" such a thing is to design an experiment where there are two groups of societies where the only distinguishing feature is that one allows homosexual behavior and the other doesn't. Then we have to watch and see what happens. Even if we could do such a thing, wouldn't it be a tad unethical to try?
A more telling question is, can you prove that homosexual behavior is not harmful to a society. Remember we started with a society that didn't permit homosexual behavior and was doing well. In all of history, homosexual behavior has been shunned, or the society did not stand. While that does not constitute proof, it does stand as evidence. We have a standard that works. Now you want to tinker with that standard. The risk to our children is great if homosexual behavior is inded harmful. Why should we let you tinker? Give me something concrete that says you aren't doing any harm before I let you experiment with my society. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Q: Why do you focus on homosexuality? Aren't adultery and fornication just as much an abomination to God? Those are heterosexual sins. Why don't you pay any attention to them?
A: Christians don't just focus on SAD. But in the public policy arena the adulterers and fornicators are happy to keep the issue private. When such issues become public Christians do respond, as when Gary Hart had to withdraw from his presidential bid, or when Bill Clinton was impeached. We even respond to our own, as when Jimmy Swaggart was caught with a prostitute, or when Gary Bauer was meeting with a female junior staffer behind closed doors for long periods of time. Homosexual Activists are the ones who force Christians to address SAD as a public policy issue. If they had been happy to keep their sexual deviancy a private issue, Christians would be happy to be focusing on other things.
But while all sin is sin from the moral perspective, there is a progression from less destructive to more destructive from the social and personal perspective. There is also a progression from soft heart (like King David) to hard heart (like Pharoah). Adultery and fornication are wrong and destructive. And they are more wrong and destructive than greed and gluttony, which are more wrong and destructive than white lies. Picture a slippery slope on the way to a completely hardened heart. Some sins are closer to the soft hart, other sins are closer to the hard heart. The Bible, especially Romans 1, makes it clear that SAD is the final step. Romans tells us that "God gave them up..." God doesn't give up easily. SADs are very nearly completely hardened. Ex-gays will tell you how hard it is to come out of that lifestyle. They will also tell you how important it is.
Hmmm. In other posts you have been relatively quick to assume what I mean without asking for details. Now you have asked me twice to specifically name those who I consider "the perverts."
Does this fishing expedition have a purpose? Is this how people get suspended?
If I am falsely accusing you of setting a trap, please forgive me. But you have never asked me for many specifics that I very much wanted to give to you. Why now do you suddenly become demanding of specifics?
Shalom.
Yes, I have. I would think that if you have the audacity to call those who oppose you philosophically as "the perverts", that perhaps you'd actually have enough integrity and courage to name them. But.... I guess not.
Does this fishing expedition have a purpose?
Fishing expedition? You chose the words... not me. You'd think you'd be man enough to stand up and say what you meant.
Is this how people get suspended?
I don't know. I'm not involved in such decisions. But maybe you ought to take a moment and think about the nature of such a comment, if it makes you wonder whether you might be suspended for it.
It is a rather rude thing to say, and that's precisely how you meant it.
All for Jesus of course.
Maybe the subject comes up most often, because you participate in threads creating "talking points" on the subject, and bump just about every thread you participate in to a list of people who are fixated on homosexuals.
Just a guess though.
If you have not seen me ask specific questions in the past, I'd submit that you weren't paying very close attention.
You have seen no posts on the topic, because you and your friends are not obsessed with them, as you are with homosexuals.
That was kinda the point.
Strange things have been occurring on this site as of late and it is disconcerting to those like JMJ333 who desire sincere, intelligent debate rather than venomous rhetoric and name calling. I pray she finds a forum worthy of her brilliance.
God Bless,
EODGUY
P.S. My computer has not been working for 4 days. It was only luck that I got on-line tonight. I hope I can get it repaired so I can recover e-mail I haven't received for 4 days.
OWK, I've not looked at your profile to check up on you, so to speak, so I'm only going to base what I've seen on our SASU threads. I personally, do not consider you a pervert. I've gotten sick of the way it seems that there's SO MANY new people on FR who only want to post for the joy of throwing out dirty comments. Now, I'm no prude....but I've gotta tell you, OWK, I was on a thread Saturday (?) night that almost caused me to leave FR too.
I've made some incredible friends here, so I don't know if I could truly leave. Who knows what God's got in store for me.
OWK, please, please, PLEASE, try to read what everyone's trying to say to you regarding God and His rules. HIS rules that we're trying to follow. Please don't try to "read between the lines" and make a mountain out of a mole-hill. It is our deepest desire that you, OWK, spend eternity with us in Heaven.
I'd recommend, as the Un-Official Gramma of This Group, that you pray and ask God to reveal to you what He'd like you to learn. You see, you're really not arguing with us, it's His laws.
Sorry for the rant, but I care about each and every one of you.
Khepera, welcome back! Hope you had a grand and groovy (snert, snert) vacation.
One can not be certain how much of this is serious, but it is better to be safe than sorry. Please join me in prayer for a friend of ours.
Shalom.
It is rude. It is also precise and accurate.
From Dictionary.com:
n. (pûrvûrt)
One who practices sexual perversion.
But, once again, you are generally quick to assume what I mean, even when the word doesn't have as well known a meaning as pervert. Why, this time, were you asking me for details? You have never asked me what I mean by 'morality' or 'morals', for example. Yet we have discussed it many times and I have begun to think that you don't use the terms the same way I do, so clarification is needed. But in this case you ask.
When someone changes character so abruptly, it does cause others to wonder why.
Shalom.
P.S. I don't know if you are a pervert or not. You haven't discussed your sexual behavior with me, for which I am profoundly greatful. You have defended perversion. But that does not make you a pervert.
If someone is not serving others then he can't rule them as a Christian.
Jesus placed all others before himself, up to dying. So did his apostles (most of whom were martyrd) and a large number of early disciples. and a large number of missionaries, and a large number of parents and church leaders and common every day folk. Did they all (except Jesus) do it perfectly? Of course not, but they (and we) are called to do their best at it.
me->Christianity and tyranny are mutually exclusive concepts.
I would think that history would tend to disagree with your observation..... strongly.
Let me quote myself from the prior post:
If someone is a behaving as a tyrant then you can bet that they are not a Christian as they are violating Gods word by being a tyrant.
A person cannot be a tyrant and be a Christian. the concepts are mutually exclusive. A man can only have one master. He either serves God or he serves himself. Tyrants serve themselves. Christians serve God (and in that service serve the people they are accountable for).
Can you give me a few examples of "benevolent" (non-tyranical) Christian "rulers"?
Jesus, David, Solomon, George Washington and the Founding Fathers (sounds like a rock group of the fifties). History is full of Christian leaders who did well for their people and it's full of leaders who called themselves Christian but acted anti-Christ. You have to look at their words AND their actions to see if they were truly Christian.
All your objections still point out that you don't understand.
God Bless OWK and open his eyes to your truth.
God Save America (Please)
And why does he disrespect the rights of others? Because he places himself above them, (as I said).
Please try to understand. Knowledge, even to one who knows, is useless without understanding.
GSA(P)
About whom is it accurate?
One would think that a man bold enough to toss the word around, would have the courage and integrity to stand behind it, and tell us who he is talking about.
But I guess that's a lot to ask.
Jesus was not a political leader in any sense of the word.
David, and Solomon were tyrants.
And George Washington was a Deist.
Out of curiosity, can you understand the difference between condemnation of government imprisonment (or worse) of consenting adult homosexuals, and endorsement or defense of their behavior?
I know it's a complex thought, but take a moment and consider it.
You are replying to post 73, where I was very specific about who perverts are. You attack my courage and integrity for failing to do precisely what I have done. I don't mind our civil debate, but calling names is beneath you. Maybe you need to rephrase your question or reread my answer. But you don't need to smear me. Would you care to try again in a civil manner?
You should know that when Khepera got suspended my idea of fair play on this board changed dramatically. I will be far less patient with personal attacks than I have been in the past. Partly I want to know what the rules are here on FR, and partly I want to be sure that the conservatives aren't hampered in a one-sided way. So I'll put it back to you. Go back to post 73 and read my answer. I believe it precisely answers your question. If you disagree, try rephrasing your question. But please don't attack my courage or integrity again without a quote to back it up.
FR is intended to be a civil discussion board.
Shalom.
He was the greatest political leader. But we weren't discussing political leaders. We were discussing rulers. And Jesus is the King of Kings (ruler of rulers).
David, and Solomon were tyrants.
David and Solomon were monarchs, but they were not tyrants. Soloman moved in that direction in his later years, althoug it was his son who pushed it into tyranny. But David was a servant of his people. He was imperfect, but his heart was good. I just finished 2 Samuel and have a pretty fresh memory of David's actions and heart.
And George Washington was a Deist.
George Washington may not have had the same beliefs about G-d's intervention that I do, but he was not someone who believed that G-d does not intervene in the hearts of men. And he was an excellent example of a Christian ruler, whether a Christian or not.
Shalom.
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.