Replies

I am asking no one to change their beliefs, you however, are trying to use the force of government to implement your religious beliefs on others and deny them theirs. They don't believe they are doing anything wrong.

Of course that is another patently absurd notion you are trying to advance. Supposedly, the use of laws to discourage thievery somehow forces beliefs upon those who honestly believe that stealing is an integral part of survival and teaches important lessons in non-attachment to worldly goods. An angel of death honestly believes she is liberating souls by murdering people. And who are we to force our beliefs onto others, you ask?!

No one is forcing beliefs onto anyone else, Luis. We are encouraging and discouraging actions, which is our right as members of society. What you meant to say is that 'No one ought to impose their values upon anyone else.' But we all impose our values upon each other all the time. The thieves and murderers impose their values onto their victims, as in turn do the general population when they prosecute them for their actions (not for their beliefs); the homosexual activists try to impose their values upon everyone else, as do their moral-liberal supporters, enablers, and excusers.

Please let us know when you get a chance to strike out those pesky words in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence about unalienable rights, as then your leaky arguments might hold more water.

There are several things that are really odd in all of this discusssion.

1) The anti-queer noise was a reaction to Act-Up and other pro-queer activism. If the queers had been satisfied to keep things in the privacy of their own homes things might be easier for them today. We're not trying to make a change, we're trying to keep things as they were. For centuries men have understood homoerotic attraction as a disease. And yet, if we suggest it is a disease, suddenly we are the ones suggestiong something "new." Of course, I support efforts to reduce lynchings, but not lynchings against queers - lynchings against everyone.

2) For some reason, if your position can be found in the Bible you aren't allowed to talk about it in a public policy debate. That one amazes me. The Bible is the only reliable source of truth on the planet. I know there are people who disagree with that statement, but I'm not one of them. So I'm supposed to ignore the only reliable source of truth on the planet when I engage in a public policy debate? Isn't that against the 1st ammendment?

3) This nation had a Judeo-Christian (not Abrahamic, by the way) value system up until the late 1800s at least. You certainly couldn't look at any of that history and say we had anything like a Nazi or Taliban nation. Jews and Christians understand freedom and responsibility better than anybody. We also understand the limitations and nature of government better than anybody. We tread carefully and will tolerate evil while evil is tolerable rather than make a change (it's in the Declaration of Independence). The entire Republican experiment, as practiced here, is Christian in nature. Nobody need fear us. On the other hand, France attempted an atheistic Republican experiment and look what happened (and is still happening) to them.

4) Why are so many "heterosexual" people so adamant about supporting homoerotic orientation as an acceptable alternative? Is it because they don't want to admit the concept of sexual perversion lest they have to look at themselves too closely? Even if men were born homoerotically oriented (a notion I reject) it is clearly not suited to any society on the planet. All existing societies are heterosexual (for obvious reasons). It is to the benefit of everyone, the queers included, for them to come to grips with reality, put their head in charge of their glands, and become a part of normal society. Why the big fight? OK, it's hard. It's hard to overcome depression, too. But people are encouraged to fight, not to submit.

I really don't understand why these issues are so difficult to grasp.

Shalom.

One strawman after another, you are laughable.

You can't figure out the difference between the taking of one person's property without permission, and a consensual sexual act.

The basic concept of law is that your rights end where mine begin, as such, you violate my rights when you take my property without my consent.

Please tell me which one of your rights are violated by two men having sex with one another in the privacy of their house, behind closed doors and windows.

You don't want to encourage people to do anything, you want to make those actions that you do not condone punishable by law. You are imposing your beliefs on others.