Homosexuals Push for Same-Sex Marriage After Sodomy Ruling

CNSNews.com ^ | 6/27/03 | Robert B. Bluey

[notyourregularhandle]

You seem to be under the impression that a decline in morality has no detrimental affect on society as a whole.

Perhaps you would like to explain yourself. Im sure all of us here would like to hear you explain how a decline in morality better serves a civilized society.

You're implying that homosexuals alone will affect this nations morality so much that it will jeopardize our 'civilized' society... My point is that I don't give homosexuals or that lifestyle that much credit. Our nation is stronger than that. Would you like me to list all other possible threats to this nations morality? Maybe child molestation for starters?

[notyourregularhandle]

You seem to be under the impression that a decline in morality has no detrimental affect on society as a whole.

Perhaps you would like to explain yourself. Im sure all of us here would like to hear you explain how a decline in morality better serves a civilized society.

You're implying that homosexuals alone will affect this nations morality so much that it will jeopardize our 'civilized' society... My point is that I don't give homosexuals or that lifestyle that much credit. Our nation is stronger than that. Would you like me to list all other possible threats to this nations morality? Maybe child molestation for starters?

[notyourregularhandle]

You seem to be under the impression that a decline in morality has no detrimental affect on society as a whole.

Perhaps you would like to explain yourself. Im sure all of us here would like to hear you explain how a decline in morality better serves a civilized society.

You're implying that homosexuals alone will affect this nations morality so much that it will jeopardize our 'civilized' society... My point is that I don't give homosexuals or that lifestyle that much credit. Our nation is stronger than that. Would you like me to list all other possible threats to this nations morality? Maybe child molestation for starters?

[notyourregularhandle]

You seem to be under the impression that a decline in morality has no detrimental affect on society as a whole.

Perhaps you would like to explain yourself. Im sure all of us here would like to hear you explain how a decline in morality better serves a civilized society.

You're implying that homosexuals alone will affect this nations morality so much that it will jeopardize our 'civilized' society... My point is that I don't give homosexuals or that lifestyle that much credit. Our nation is stronger than that. Would you like me to list all other possible threats to this nations morality? Maybe child molestation for starters?

[notyourregularhandle]

You seem to be under the impression that a decline in morality has no detrimental affect on society as a whole.

Perhaps you would like to explain yourself. Im sure all of us here would like to hear you explain how a decline in morality better serves a civilized society.

You're implying that homosexuals alone will affect this nations morality so much that it will jeopardize our 'civilized' society... My point is that I don't give homosexuals or that lifestyle that much credit. Our nation is stronger than that. Would you like me to list all other possible threats to this nations morality? Maybe child molestation for starters?

[notyourregularhandle]

You seem to be under the impression that a decline in morality has no detrimental affect on society as a whole.

Perhaps you would like to explain yourself. Im sure all of us here would like to hear you explain how a decline in morality better serves a civilized society.

You're implying that homosexuals alone will affect this nations morality so much that it will jeopardize our 'civilized' society... My point is that I don't give homosexuals or that lifestyle that much credit. Our nation is stronger than that. Would you like me to list all other possible threats to this nations morality? Maybe child molestation for starters?

[notyourregularhandle]

You seem to be under the impression that a decline in morality has no detrimental affect on society as a whole.

Perhaps you would like to explain yourself. Im sure all of us here would like to hear you explain how a decline in morality better serves a civilized society.

You're implying that homosexuals alone will affect this nations morality so much that it will jeopardize our 'civilized' society... My point is that I don't give homosexuals or that lifestyle that much credit. Our nation is stronger than that. Would you like me to list all other possible threats to this nations morality? Maybe child molestation for starters?

[notyourregularhandle]

You seem to be under the impression that a decline in morality has no detrimental affect on society as a whole.

Perhaps you would like to explain yourself. Im sure all of us here would like to hear you explain how a decline in morality better serves a civilized society.

You're implying that homosexuals alone will affect this nations morality so much that it will jeopardize our 'civilized' society... My point is that I don't give homosexuals or that lifestyle that much credit. Our nation is stronger than that. Would you like me to list all other possible threats to this nations morality? Maybe child molestation for starters?

[Claud]

Yep, and then humankind experimented and learned and reached new understandings about the universe we live in and the beings that populate this planet. Would you rather we still believed theories that are not emperically true?

Absolutely not--but be careful about putting too much faith in our limited notions about what is "empirically true." 40 years ago, homosexuality was a psychological disorder according to the APA. Now it's not. 40 years ago, the universe always existed according to physicist, now it began at the Big Bang. Who's to say that in 50 years, there won't be a shocking new empirical discovery that throws all modern theories out the window? That's why when it comes to absolute truth, science cannot be relied upon--we need something that transcends human thought and speculation, and that's where divine revelation comes in. Empirical evidence if acquired correctly, will never contradict what has been revealed, because they both come from Truth, and the Truth can't contradict itself. But people are fallible and can make really bad assumptions about the data in front of them--and that's where the problem comes in.

[Claud]

But then what do you make of the fact that earnest people, seeking truth, disagree on what what rights "He" has or has not granted? Or do you discount those who reach answers different from your own as either not seeking the truth hard enough or ignoring what is "burned into their hearts"? How are you so sure you've got it right?

There's much less fundamental disagreement than you may think--and certainly in the realm of homosexuality there is very little at all, because that's not a matter of theological speculation. That's part of the natural law known to every human being on the planet even if they were born on a remote desert island, and even people heavily involved in that lifestyle know on some level it is wrong.

Look down through history, and you see a consistent and virtually unanimous condemnation of homosexuality in every part of the world. Doesn't there seem like there must be a reason why that is?

[Claud]

The atheist sits at the top of a great mountain, from which he can view the entire universe and all that is beyond it, the past, present and future, and, seeing all, declares, "There is no God!".

Well said. Freeper Antoninus likes to throw this argument at them--which I think is particularly brilliant:

"Tell me what you believe in without using the word God."

The great thing about it is that it points out that strangely ironic negation: "I believe in a condition of not-God." Their whole argument first assumes the Christian God, then negates Him. His question denies them that cheap negation, and makes THEM come up with something that positively exists, which of course, when you analyze it turns out to be silly in one way or another.

[elfman2]

"Bogus, my friend! Your observation is actually your own person anti-religion bias showing. Second, if you say being religious doesn't disqualify, why do you bring up a bogus percentage of people being "fundamentalist" Christians in the first place?"

Maybe after you apologize for your hypersensitive irrational assault on my character, I'll take the second part of your reply seriously and treat it as it you had the maturity to process my answer. Maybe…

[PatrioticAmerican]

They might as well marry their dog, or invite a third homo to join them.

I think marriage can be regulated as a aman & woman because marriage is not a private act, ruled by the court as protected.

[PatrioticAmerican]

I think a public showing of two men pounding each other in the butt would change public perception that being gay is a good thing.

[elfman2]

"Gee. All the while I thought we were discussing the Constitutional merits of the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. But as it turns out, we were really discussing your opinion of the age at which it is self-evident (and therefore constitutionally determined) that a child can't give consent to sexual relations. I apologize."

Lawrence v. Texas? [snicker]. If you can find anything in any conversation that I've said referencing Lawrence v. Texas, I'll believe that you didn't just invent that to hide the fact that you've painted yourself into a corner 2-3 times on this thread alone.

[First Amendment]

Their whole argument first assumes the Christian God, then negates Him.

Please read this thread and my (rather long) reply to Polycarp, it relates to this subtopic as well as the main topic. My premise is that there is one Supreme Person, understood to varying degrees by the monotheists of the world.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/936806/posts

[First Amendment]

I appreciate your reply. It did in fact shed some light on a few angles regarding homosexuality...

- Hey, I just scratched the surface - there's a lot more arguments where they came from!

and if my kids get brain washed in the schools, i trust they will be able to figure it out on their own ... (it, meaning moral absolutes) I grew up attending public schools and I had to listen to a lot of BS, but I saw through the crap.

- Hey, I just scratched the surface - there's a lot more arguments where they came from!

But as far as kids in schools, I don'tknow how long ago you were in high school, but things are getting dominated very fast by the pro-homo lobby. In California in 2001 a state law was passed mandating the instruction in grades K-12 of homosexual propaganda. I know a lot about it as I live 10 miles from CA and have friends with schoolage kids. Kids that go through indoctrination when they are young come out 12 years later often unrecognizable.

[af_vet_1981]

Amendments are not the proper response. Six justices need to be impeached and removed from office. There is no other way to make the point and right the wrong.

No violence.

Impeach and remove from office.

[af_vet_1981]

There is no significant difference between homosexual relations, and those with a sibling or an animal. While all could be temporarily pleasant, all lead to spiritual death. They are unnatural and perverse. Six unrighteous judges need to be impeached and removed from office.