Posted on 07/29/2003 11:03:15 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Yes, but your unproved assumption is that there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality.
And why would a homosexual want that law enforced?
Wrong.
If I can claim a behavior is something beyond my control, I go from a responsible citizen, to a brute beast that has to be managed by the state. What would the status of Black Americans go to if the majority decided violent behavior is something Black Americans can't control? What about greed to Jews? How about hysterical behavior to women?
American liberty is predicated on responsibility for ones own behavior.
Which brings us back to one of my previous questions: if you were wrong, how could someone prove it to you? Not answering that question is proof you wouldn't appreciate a compelling answer even if it were given.
What standard are you using to define "integrity?" That they don't take cheap shots at you? What differences are you looking for?
The more people try to hysterically paint conservatives as monsters, the more conservatives will demand the truth.
Let's see which outraged group will get "equal time" in the media.
ROFL! It's not a big deal since I'm headed back to school soon; I won't really have time for any relationship.
Since this is a homosexuality thread, I should observe that involuntary celibates ought to investigate bisexuality - it'd double the frequency of rejection!
Define "child" and who are you to say they aren't mature enough to make sexual decisions?I don't have to define child, the state already has. A child cannot vote, own real property, buy alcohol, etc. Our society has a very clear-cut demarcation between what adults can do and what children can do.
The states don't agree on what goes on in the bedroom for teens. Age of consent varies from state to state (14-18). Anyone who has reached "age of consent" can consent to sexual relations with an adult (a person aged over 18).
Additionally, many states have "Romeo & Juliet" execptions to the age of consent that virtually eliminate it. They permit "consensual" relations with another person provided that the partner in the sex act is with 3 or 4 years of the minor. This is true even if the partner is over the age of 18.
So legislatures (a) do continue to legislate what goes on in the bedroom, and (b)permit persons of virtually any age to consent to sex acts.
Of course I can. Here it is:
The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game
More to the point, it's about forcing the rest of society to sanction behavior it finds morally,socially, and philosophically repugnant.
Were they treated differently than heterosexual sodomites? You don't know.
I think it ironic, but not surprising, that you find people arguing for the status quo to be "disingenuous," yet apparently approve of those who practice judicial theater.
Read scripter's link and get back to the thread afterwards and eat humble pie.
Open and transparent are precisely what homosexuals do not want to be. They have had a stated objective from the beginning to NOT let us "straights" know what they do beacause we would be nauseated and sickened.
Their STATED plan has been to gradually introduce themselves, under cover of "gay identity" and "civil rights" until us sheeple started equating sodomy with being born black or brown. Kind of like putting the frog in the pot and gradually heating the water up. By the time the frog notices, it's too late. Well, I think the frogs are noticing and it's not too late!
I think we need to get our terminology straight here, (no pun intended). The homosexual activists have a declared interest in changing the definition of "homosexual" from "one who engages in sex acts with the same gender" to "a gay person" - a community, an identity. There is no such thing as a "gay" person unless you mean a joyful, carefree person. Calling people who (currently) engage in same sex acts "gay" is a tool to get those same-sex acting people to somehow feel a group identity, to further the power of their supposed community. In reality, all that means is to degrade the morality of the general community. It is also a means to equate in the general population's mind a person who (for whatever reason) currently engages in same sex acts with a member of a bona fide group of people such as black people, Filippinos, or women.
The whole idea that some people can be called "gay" or even homosexual is absurd. In fact, the word "homosexual" was coined by a sodomite (much more accurate and descriptive word, just means one who practices sodomy) in Germany, I believe in the late 19th century for the specific purpose of creating a feeling of "special community" among fellow sodomites and especially pederasts.
This is described in researched detail in "The Pink Swastika" by Scott Lively - on the web in its entirety at www.abidingtruth.com.
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.