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 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 661-677 next last
To: tdadams
And I see you're changing your tune now. You're no longer saying our rights are granted by the Constitution. These are views I've held quite a long time, so no I'm not changing my tune. In my view the Constitution is the mechanism Americans have chosen to protect our natural rights. In practice there isn't much difference between the Constitution granting rights and the Constitution protecting natural rights. The biggest example I can think of when the distinction was important was when the Constitution permitted slavery, which is a violation of the slaves' natural rights.
BTW, I'm very much in the minority. Most Americans, including most SCOTUS justices, view the Constitution as a social contract that is the source of our rights, rejecting the theory of natural rights.
To: Mark Bahner
Coitus is always ordered toward procreation and survival, even when its end is frustrated, whether naturally -- as in menopause -- or artificially -- as in birth control.
To: BibChr
You're right.
I'd rather have the Democrats win in 2004 than see a sweep to "victory" by a GOP that refuses to condemn the filthy perversion that is the homosexual "lifestyle". The nation can survive a Democratic administration or two; it cannot survive the rejection of the Judeo-Christian moral worldview.
Winning an election is meaningless if one compromises one's moral principles to win it. Thank God I'm not a Republican.
443
posted on
05/20/2003 2:55:03 PM PDT
by
B-Chan
(Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
To: BibChr
I just wish they'd stick to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer chatrooms with the other pre-teens, and not interrupt adult conversations. Don't you?
Self-absorbed, self-important, vain, arrogant, proud. Seems like I've seen a list like that somewhere before.
444
posted on
05/20/2003 2:55:13 PM PDT
by
Dataman
To: longtermmemmory
It was you who analogized smoking addiction and obesity to homosexuality. I absolutely did not. You took one thing I said in reference to the health costs of homosexuality vs. smoking or obesity and turned into a behavioral analogy. Either you don't know the difference or you're being deliberately deceitful.
You have ignored examples of groups like Glsen and Glad directly ecouraging teenagers to experince homosexual sex.
I have never said, nor implied that it's appropriate for Glsen to encourage teenagers to experiment homosexually (if in fact that's what they're doing). It is not.
Where I have a problem is when people like you want to point to some extreme misbehavior and extrapolate that because of that misbehavior we need to curtail the rights of everyone who falls into a very broad category similar to those who are misbehaving.
This doesn't seem to register with you unless it's the anti-gun lobby who tries to argue that all guns should be banned anytime some looney nut shoots up a school. It's the same misapplied logic.
445
posted on
05/20/2003 2:56:07 PM PDT
by
tdadams
To: tdadams
I did read the book and I'm afraid you're the one who's being disingenuous and/or disagreeable. The book summary was written by someone who is obviously as vituperatively opposed to treating gays with any kind of dignity as you are. Her summations are, how to say it, a bit propagandistic. Is there no end to your obfuscation and misdirection? Tell me, does the link accurately represent what was said in the book, yes or no. Is there anything out of context, yes or no? You'll probably respond with more obfuscation. But whatever it takes, the ends justify the means in your case.
To: Maximilian
"Yes. No. This was addressed in my previous post to which you are replying. The state has an obligation to insure that its laws respecting marriage correspond to the natural law."
Heh, heh, heh! The natural law, as *you* (and your friends) define it. Are you Catholic? If not, where does your church say that contraception is a violation of natural law?
"Marriage is for the purpose of reproduction."
I haven't seen a lot of grandparents and great-grandparents divorcing. If marriage is for the purpose of reproduction, their staying together has no purpose.
Further, your opinion that states have the legitimate authority to outlaw contraception means that you think there is no civil right of parents to limit their family size...such that their children get the amount of attention those parents think they deserve. Is that your church's official position, or only your own?
I'd also be interested in your answers to my other questions:
1) Do blacks have a civil right to sit anywhere they want to on a bus?
2) Does anyone have a civil right to marry someone of a different race?
To: eastsider
"Coitus is always ordered toward procreation..."
Yeah, and me swinging in the on-deck circle is "ordered towards hitting..." but I bet you wouldn't be willing to put any money in favor of my getting a hit from that position.
To: theoverseer
I defended him in order to protest the way in which we have become a less tolerant and more mean-spirited culture than we were.
It is about time that multiculturism is not tolerated and if we need to be tough about, so be it. Not such a great thing protesting how mean spirited the culture has become, especially when every parasitic and infected 3rd world peon comes to this country so that taxpayers can fund his life.
449
posted on
05/20/2003 3:07:28 PM PDT
by
RWG
To: Dataman
Don't forget "incontinent" (KJV).
<c;
Dan
450
posted on
05/20/2003 3:08:23 PM PDT
by
BibChr
("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
To: tdadams
I have never said, nor implied that it's appropriate for Glsen to encourage teenagers to experiment homosexually (if in fact that's what they're doing). It is not.
*** ** * *
It is in fact EXACTLY what glsen is doing. It is why they encourage schools to prohibit parents from classes during sex lectures.
This is the material used from the National Glsen
organization. It does and is seeking to have teenagers practice homosexual sex. The national president openly encouraged the under 18 to practice homosexual sex as recorded in his own words.
Don't Knock Homosexuality Until You've Tried It (8:01)
http://www.forthechildreninc.com/recordings/maconf08.ram Teaching Children to Try Lesbianism (3:37)
http://www.forthechildreninc.com/recordings/maconf06.ram these are audio recordings of a required seminar for teachers telling them what to teach children in public school. This is Glsen.
here are some more
Children Learn About 'Fisting' and More (5:35)
http://www.forthechildreninc.com/recordings/maconf07.ram Scott Whiteman: A Poem On The Real Agenda (Length 2:49)
http://www.forthechildreninc.com/recordings/maconf09.ram Scott Whiteman: What Your Child Can Do On An All Out Sex Date (Length 4:41)
http://www.forthechildreninc.com/recordings/maconf05.ram Scott Whiteman: Teaching Children to Try Something Bad...
http://www.forthechildreninc.com/recordings/maconf06.ram These are THE materials of homosexuals use when they have access to children. Parents have every right to demand these people stay far away form children. Homosexual strangers have no right constitutional or otherwise to encourage children to engage in homosexual sex. This is undeniable. period.
TRIBADISM (Length 3:38)
To: B-Chan
"Thank God I'm not a Republican."
Well looks like I can agree with something you've said on this thread.
Make that two of us.
Trace
452
posted on
05/20/2003 3:10:47 PM PDT
by
Trace21230
(Ideal MOAB test site: Paris)
To: longtermmemmory
Scott Whiteman: Teaching Children to Try Something Bad... TRIBADISM (Length 3:38) (as in try-bad-ism, to ecourage trying harmful things. Its a new "ism")
http://www.forthechildreninc.com/recordings/maconf06.ram These are THE materials of homosexuals use when they have access to children. Parents have every right to demand these people stay far away form children. Homosexual strangers have no right constitutional or otherwise to encourage children to engage in homosexual sex. This is undeniable. period.
To: colorado tanker
"In practice there isn't much difference between the Constitution granting rights and the Constitution protecting natural rights."
There's a HUGE difference. Liberty and equality are "self-evident" natural rights. But the Constitution protected *slavery*, until the 13th Amendment.
That does NOT mean that blacks born as slaves didn't have the rights to liberty and equality (equal protection of the laws). It's "self-evident" that they did. It's merely that the Founding Fathers screwed up, in that regard. Big time.
"Most Americans, including most SCOTUS justices, view the Constitution as a social contract that is the source of our rights, rejecting the theory of natural rights."
Most Americans, most definitely including the present judges of the Supreme Court, are irrational and/or ignorant. That's why we're in the mess we're in (the federal government massively violating the Constitution).
To: scripter
Tell me, does the link accurately represent what was said in the book, yes or no I can't say for sure, I haven't read the book. Have you? But call me crazy, something about the vocabulary of her summary leads me to believe that she's sensationalizing the book a bit.
455
posted on
05/20/2003 3:14:13 PM PDT
by
tdadams
To: longtermmemmory
Homosexual strangers have no right constitutional or otherwise to encourage children to engage in homosexual sex. Why are you preaching at me as if I'd argued otherwise?
456
posted on
05/20/2003 3:16:22 PM PDT
by
tdadams
To: Ohioan
I invite those who haven't done so, to check out my posted reply #426, as I believe it puts this issue into perspective.
I do not want to seem overly critical of the many other posted replies, but some of them are all over the map; and I think that before we let this issue completely fragment us, we try to more narrowly define just what the point is.
457
posted on
05/20/2003 3:25:19 PM PDT
by
Ohioan
To: Mark Bahner
I don't know that we have any big disagreement, although I look at the present state of affairs with more optimism than you, apparently.
I thought the "social contract" types would have been jolted by the rise of Hitler to power, WWII and the Holocaust, done by proper procedure or agreement of the people, but grossly violative of the natural rights of millions. The only principled way to critique that regime was from a natural rights point of view.
To: longtermmemmory
No parent wants their child to grow up to be a homosexual.
Personally, I've met plenty of parents who don't care. "Whatever makes them happy." The heart of the problem is a conflation of "happiness" and "pleasure." And sometime between the Declaration of Independence and today, we've lost the common language necessary to debate the issue rationally, as this thread demonstrates.
To: Trace21230; B-Chan
Make that 3 of us.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson