Posted on 06/29/2003 11:26:04 AM PDT by Polycarp
This, from someone who can't conceive that married couples would possibly engage in acts of sodomy.
Since when does the government have the authority to give license to what sexual practices it will approve?
Actually, the topic is so deep that to dismiss it in a few sentences doesn't give it justice. Thinkers and seekers of the truth, as well as spiritual practitioners from all religions, have concluded that the self is the eternal soul/atma, and the body is a temporary vehicle or covering that is in our possession, for a time.
If I recall correctly, Jefferson's bible eliminated all references to the supernatural. If you are more than a nominal Christian, you probably won't find Jefferson's religousness to be all that convincing.
Without the social conservatives, the GOP looks a lot more attractive to middle of the road voters.
Thanks, Bonaparte!
It's been mentioned on FR lately - why are there so many homo-promoters and sodomy-promoters here lately? There's nothing conservative about one quarter (rough estimate) of the posters here. And the liberaltarians? Don't they have a forum where they can mentally play with themselves? They are so indoctrinated by their silly fantasy world they can't debate like rational humans.
Good steel is forged in a hot fire - so debate can help clarify one's principles and firm the backbone.
but people like DArconia (or whatever his name is) belong on some XXX kind of site.
I agree with your statements, unspun - the problem with liberaltarians (and I'm sure you know this better than I do - I've only been on FR for a half a year and before that I didn't really know much about them) is that they cannot think. Their decision to equate vice with freedom has polluted their hearts, so when they try to see reality they are only seeing a phantasmagoria.
They remind me of a guy I used to know slightly in my (long ago) drug taking days. He used to ingest quantities of belladonna, and it put him in a total alternate reality. He saw chairs that weren't there, didn't see the ones that were. Talked to imaginary people, didn't see the ones in the room, etc. An imaginary world created by some hidden corner of his mind.
You are making my point for me, tdadams. The Supreme Court should have had the good sense to just stay out of these issues entirely. It has no authority to be taking such positions -- pro or con -- with respect to the sphere of sexuality. There's nothing in the Constitution that grants such power. The better part of wisdom would be for the Court simply to recognize that it must stay neutral. To rush in and rule anyway, whichever "side" it takes, it will be the wrong side in the view of some substantial portion of the public. This is hardly a prescription for social peace, for comity among the citizens. IMHO FWIW.
My own personal view of homosexual practices is I have no standing whatever to object to what consenting adults do in private. What I object to is the issuing of particular "rights" to minorities. Homosexuals already have full and equal protection under federal law. They don't need special rights that pertain only to their class. True, the Texas law was foolish. But to strike it down by federal judicial fiat is equally foolhardy. The matter should have been addressed and rectified in Texas, by Texans. And, given time, I feel confident it would have been. The public is getting more and more tolerant of gay people -- even in Texas.
As you probably know, when I say sodomy in this connection I am primarily referring to anal sex, although I know that technically sodomy can and often does refer to oral sex. Either way, to publicly boast about one's sodomy practice on this forum is rude and childish, and is evidence that someone who likes to parade their sex life in public has a psycholodogical problem, and would be better suited to a different type of forum.
This reply is the result of the typical, and intentional, discrediting of the Founding Fathers' Christian beliefs that pervades modern society. Jefferson's Bible does not eliminate the supernatural, it eliminates the non-gospel books, focusing solely on Jesus' words in the gospels. I do agree with you that Jefferson was no traditional Christian, and maybe a very marginal one doctrinally. But my point to the original poster was that the Founding Fathers did very much live by explicit Christian morals and ethics, and they fashioned the Constitution accordingly. It is true that few of them actually adhered to traditional, orthodox Christian doctrines as far as religious worship was concerned. But even so, they wove Christian principles and values into the Constitution.
For the first 200 years of this country it did. The men who wrote the Constitution considered that it did.
Are you suggesting that this establishes "property rights" in one's body? Soul or atma cannot begin to express itself in the space-time plane without the organic body to which it is inseparably joined in physical reality. The bodily manifestation is simply part of the same energy continuum that is the self. I mean, it's not like a shoe or a suit that one puts on, or takes off at will.
Liberaltarians and regular liberals like to do this sort of thing - make a statement that sounds as though it's based in fact, but it is just an opinion.
Let's see the poll numbers.
It's like they look in the mirror, and being self-centered, can't imagine that anyone looks different than what they see.
Actually, according to the Vedas, it is exactly that - it is compared to a vehicle that the atma (or soul, self) is temporarily wearing.
And it is not of the same energy as the body. There are two energies - the material energy, prakriti - which changes its manifestation, and the paraprakriti, or spiritual energy which manifests eternally. The soul or atma is the paraprakriti, and the body is prakriti.
I would agree with you with one minor change. The Supreme Court government should have had the good sense to just stay out of these issues entirely.
And that is the state we're at now. And that is why the Supreme Court's decision was proper.
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.