Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pride Before The Fall (Horowitz Sticks it to the Fundies!)
FrontPage Magazine ^ | 5/20/03 | David Horowitz

Posted on 05/20/2003 8:14:33 AM PDT by theoverseer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 661-677 next last
To: Clint N. Suhks
I've answered most of 369 before. You believe in one version of human rights and I another.

I don't understand you last question? What's the point?

381 posted on 05/20/2003 1:57:25 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
You think our rights are a grant from the Constitution or the Supreme Court???

You don't think the rights you enjoy as an American citizen come from the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

I think we've found the source of confusion.

Agreed.

382 posted on 05/20/2003 1:58:39 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: theoverseer
Although Jesus did not write the Book of Romans, the Holy Spirit did.

He should read the second half of chapter 1 and see for himself what the Holy Spirit thinks of homsexuality.
383 posted on 05/20/2003 1:58:49 PM PDT by AlGone2001 (If liberals must lie to advance their agenda, why is liberalism good for me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: breakem
I construe the reticence on the matter of where the right to non-coital acts to come from as an admission that there is no basis for such a right.
384 posted on 05/20/2003 2:00:55 PM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
re 367 You said I was recent to "gay rights" instead of saying you were wrong you compared my date with the date the constitution was in effect. Switch and bait is a sign of failure to admit you guessed wrong.

Of course nothing in the constitution lists a seual right or the right to walk outside or the right to wear a white t-shirt vs a blue t-shirt or the right to cook a hamburger or to blow you nose. You are not following NO ONE EXCEPT A FEW IGNORANT SOULS SAYS THE CONSTITUTION LISTS ALL HUMAN RIGHTS. If you want to surrender rights to the government that aren't listed in the constitution go ahead. Most of us will not be joining you.

385 posted on 05/20/2003 2:01:37 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
That's an excellent point Dan, and I agree with you that forming a group is probably more destructive to them then they realize. I just think that the only way you can change things is to talk to people.
386 posted on 05/20/2003 2:03:53 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
You might read the declaration of independence and some of the 17th and 18th century philosophers. You can cite any source you want. It is your burden to cite the source of governmental to prohibit the behavior. I must say in the absence of your ability to do so, you have lost the day.
387 posted on 05/20/2003 2:03:56 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Would you accept at face value the tenets of an article titled "The Christian Agenda for America" written by the American Atheists Organization?

You just demonstrated you didn't read the link, you have terrible reading comprehension skills, or you're just continuing with your obfuscation.

The link is a summary of the book very popular with homosexuals: After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990s by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

So, care to admit the homosexual agenda exists? Or, will you obfuscate or not respond? Perhaps you'll now read the link and the others I listed. Probably not as you don't seem interested in facts.

388 posted on 05/20/2003 2:06:01 PM PDT by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: breakem
It is your burden to cite the source of governmental to prohibit the behavior.
I have a burden to defend a proposition I haven't made? I don't think so.
389 posted on 05/20/2003 2:06:12 PM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Its not unconstitutional for a state to prohibit smoking. It a state or municipal issue for the legislature. The fact that the state of Texas can prohibit homosexual soddomy isa issue for the state of Texas legislature.

I did not say I agreed with that law, only that the law is valid. It was you who analogized smoking addiction and obesity to homosexuality. As behavioral examples, I addressed the fact that as behaviors they can be regulated. As behaviors they are undesriable. As behaviors we discourage our children from engaging in those behaviors, REGARDLESS of the law.

You have also refused to adress the protection of children. You have ignored examples of groups like Glsen and Glad directly ecouraging teenagers to experince homosexual sex. This is not appropriate conduct. It is indefensible.

You have further ignored the open hostility of homosexuals to any referendum which adresses homosexual special rights. The citizens of colorado passed a referendum but the homosexual groups had hissy fits. Citizens place a referendum on the miami ballots but the homosexuals run to court to prevent a public vote. This is no reason or need to create a special civil rights catagory for homosexual behavior. There is no constitutional right to be obese, there is no constitutional right to be a smoker, there is no constitutional right impose homosexual acceptance/tollerance/experimentation on children.

BTW Texas has a seperate statute which mandates the teaching that homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. Its not part of the supreme court case.
390 posted on 05/20/2003 2:09:02 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
you need to go back to civics 101. Certain rights refers to the ones listed in the bill of rights and then it says should not be meant to deny or disparage other rights.

Make a coherent point and I may stay around. Your remediation is tedious.

You cannot use the 10th amendment to say that the constitution was meant to deny human rights. Who gave the founders the right to deny sometheing they did not have the power to grant or and thus to deny?

You can repeat your question all you want, but you have a serious misunderstanding of governmental power vis a vis human rights. Please let me know if you ever decide to run for office.

391 posted on 05/20/2003 2:09:26 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: atomic conspiracy
Religious Right buffonery is the number one weapon in the terror-apologist propaganda arsenal, their best opportunity to promote the big lie that they, and not we, promote the principles of The Enlightenment.

Your lucid presentation of your position makes it clear that there is no possible area of agreement between those in your camp and those in our camp. Which merely reinforces the original question raised by Horowitz's article: "Is there any way to maintain the Republican coalition between social conservatives and people like yourself?" Your statement implies that the answer is "No." You may be right, but that forecasts a period of turbulence ahead not only for Republicans, but for the Republic.

392 posted on 05/20/2003 2:09:26 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Remedy; Trace21230
YOU CERTAINLY SEEM TO BE!

[Raised eyebrows.]

I don't see Trace spamming thread after thread with information and links about ingestion of fecal matter during homosexual activity.

(Don't let me forget to thank you for that, btw, Trace.)

On the other hand, I am often reminded of this image when I open one of these threads:


393 posted on 05/20/2003 2:10:10 PM PDT by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (When you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: breakem
I've answered most of 369 before.

That’s Bull Sh!t, you’ve addressed NOTHING but here’s your big chance.

You believe in one version of human rights and I another.

I believe in the Constitution and you have NO answer for it other than reprinting the 9th over and over without addressing how it supercedes the 10TH.

I don't understand you last question?

That’s not surprising.

What's the point?

That would be an example of when your unenumerated rights have a valid premise.

394 posted on 05/20/2003 2:10:16 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: breakem
This is going nowhere.

There are important differences between natural rights, constitutional rights, statutory rights and human rights. The source, importance and enforcement of each of them is different. Like I said, you might want to pick up a good treatise.

395 posted on 05/20/2003 2:10:18 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
Then we agree? government cannot prohibit what you refer to as eroticism.
396 posted on 05/20/2003 2:10:37 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Why, when you've been so clear and lucid?
397 posted on 05/20/2003 2:11:29 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
I hope your slow and haven't answered 391 yet. Your 394 is as bad as my rants.
398 posted on 05/20/2003 2:12:37 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: breakem
I am reconsidering my comments about beastiality. There is a thread running now "Chimps to be Considered Human" FR. Is this a wonderful world or what?
399 posted on 05/20/2003 2:15:28 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
"Like adultery and sodomy, fornication is also illegal in many states, although these laws are rarely prosecuted."

And there were laws in many states, up to the 1960s, that required blacks in public buses to go to the back of the bus, if a white person wanted their seat in the front of the bus. Does that mean that blacks don't have a civil right to sit anywhere they want on public buses?

Also, in many states, marriage between races was illegal, until fairly recently (16 states, as recently as 1967). Does that mean that there is no civil right for a person of one race to marry a person of another race?

"Marriage establishes both a spiritual relationship and a legal relationship. Both civil law and canon law have always recognized that the marriage contract allows unlimited access to one another's bodies for sexual relations."

Actually, until Griswold vs Connecticut, there WAS a "limit," at least in Connecticut. That limit was that no contraceptives could be used.

Do you think a state has the legitimate authority to prevent married couples from using contraceptives? How about the legitimate authority to require use of contraceptives?
400 posted on 05/20/2003 2:15:31 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 661-677 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson