Facing The Truth About Homosexual Behavior

Traditional Values Coalition ^ | January 29, 2002 | Rev. Louis P. Sheldon

[justshutupandtakeit]

Jefferson would have gladly accepted the title and after falling under his baleful influence so would Madison.

[justshutupandtakeit]

When Jews were first immigrating to this nation in large numbers around the turn of the century they were almost universal in their praise of the public school systems in the large cities. These helped them assimilate and often made them feel part of a nation of their own for the very first time. This is one of the most important roles of a public school system to bring some degree of unity from our many peoples. It has sadly been neglected and perverted of late.

What you say of your family is also true of the Jewish people as a whole but what about those whose family backgrounds place no such value on education? Won't our entire nation suffer when those children are not acceptably educated?

My background is from the deep south where education was not valued. Should I therefore have been denied an education because my parents could/would not pay for it (there were 7 sons in my family, my mom had an 8th grade education)? We must look beyond our individual self (and even self interest) when making decisions that affect society as a whole.

Taxation is not theft when imposed by lawful means.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No offense taken. It is precisely the broad brush approach I am attacking however. WRT to public education it is the standard method around here.

[GSWarrior]

My 17 year old daughter has the "right" to be free from the sight of their courtship.

Wrong. There is nothing in the Consitition or Bill of Rights that gives one the right to not be offended.

[Republic]

OK. When I hold hands with my fiancée in public, are we "flaunting our heterosexuality in people's faces?"

You are holding the had of someone you love and plan to marry. Romance between a man and a woman does not need to be defended. Ever. Although there are boundaries as to how far such affectionate displays can go in public places. What has that got to do with homosexuals?

[GSWarrior]

If you consider Jail a concentration camp then fine!! I'm a Nazi and you guys need to go to jail. Does it help you to be less of a pervert to make me a Nazi?

I'm no Biblical scholar such as yourself, but somewhere in the Bible it says that every word spoken will be accounted for.

[steve-b]

Outside the Eastern states and Virginia the number of literate citizens was very low

BWAAAHAHAHAHA!!!

Well, DUH! In the 1790s, most of the country "outside the Eastern states and Virginia" was still dominated by the Amerinds (or, if you prefer, "Native Americans").

[Khepera]

I'm no Biblical scholar such as yourself, but somewhere in the Bible it says that every word spoken will be accounted for.

Yea I know. It was refering to FreeRepublic when it was written.

[GSWarrior]

I realize I took the Nazi comment out of context, but it does seem to echo your sentiments. I'm not sure if you truly want to help homosexuals out of their lifestyle because:
A--you sincerly love them as fellow creatures of God, or
B--if you don't try to 'help', you will fall out of favor with God.

[FormerLib]

The story you linked mentioned no "roomate" before whom sex had occurred...

Yeah, I acknowledged that the article I linked to didn't say the guy was a roommate. Could have sworn that I saw that it one story about it but can't point to it.

...no "living room" in which sex was witnessed by a roommate or any other third person...

Hello? The article does refer to the third persion who witnessed it! That's the guy who called the whole thing in to the police.

...no "open door" through which the police entered.

Hello again? Re-read post #417, please. It clearly states that the police entered through an open door!

You want privacy? Keep third parties out of it and close the damn door!

[FormerLib]

I can't find the exact one that I was looking for, but he touches on the essential points in this article.

Let's ask a general question just to get started. If there's an act we all agree is immoral and unacceptable when done by an individual, does that act become moral and acceptable when done collectively, namely by government?

You say, "Williams, that's a bit too esoteric; would you break it down?"

OK, here's a for-instance. If we deem rape as immoral and unacceptable when done by an individual, does rape become moral and acceptable when done collectively? What if we vote to rape someone. Does that make rape morally acceptable? I'm hoping that all of my fellow Americans will answer: Neither a majority consensus nor collective action necessarily establishes what's moral or immoral.

In the article that I read some time ago, he used this as an example of how you could never make rape acceptable, even if you passed a Constitutional Amendment saying it was. This also applies to theft, including theft by the Federal Government under the guise of income taxes.

[Spallenzani]

The vast majority of Jews are secular and have socialist leanings. I am neither secular or socialist. Most Observant Jews tend to be conservative. Ever heard of Jewish World Review?

If you believe, as I do, that a proper education is a necessary requirement for children just as food, shelter, and clothing fit into this same category, fine. Society should obligate the parents to provide an education to their children, just as society obligates parents to provide food, shelter, and clothing to their childrem. Anything less would be child abuse.

I do not mean to insult you, but if your parents could not provide the basic needs of seven children, perhaps they should not have had so many. Unless society places a cost directly on the parents for providing these basic needs, some parents will have no problem producing more children than they can possibly afford, and instead will rely on government confiscation of other people's property to pay for what should be their own responsibility.

My parents realized after two that they could not support more. They also realized how difficult it would be to apply for private scholarships in order to send my sister and I to religious schools. They did not consider this an entitlement, as many consider public schools. They considered our private education a privelege, one that required hard work and an occasional sense of shame, for not being able to financially provide for their own children. We generally think of shame as a bad thing; something to be gotten rid of. But it can act as a positive motivator, encouraging people to stop relying on others for subsistance and instead make it on their own. That is an important element missing from the public school system, or any socialist welfare program currently in use by our government.

We must look beyond our individual self (and even self interest) when making decisions that affect society as a whole.

I disagree vehemently with this concept. I hold that individual rights are sacrosanct; not to be violated for the benefit of the majority. I oppose collectivism wherever I see it.

Taxation is not theft when imposed by lawful means.

How is this possible? How does an act that is morally wrong for an individual suddenly become morally right for the collective?

[Spallenzani]

That's a great article. I knew there was a reason I liked Williams. Every time I read one of his articles I like him even more.

[Fethiye]

I stand corrected on the open door. These guys were careless.

But nothing in either article indicates that anyone (including the third party who, according to the article you linked, was in the apartment earlier that evening) was subjected to any untoward display.

The thought of these guys being arrested inside the apartment for consensual sex is still creepy. Isn't it? Or is it okay because, you know, you can only be arrested in Texas for having the wrong kind of sex in your apartment? That should allow most of us to breathe easy. No police state worries for us!

[CubicleGuy]

Is that what goes through your mind when you see a couple proudly parading with their kids on a Sunday stroll?

Nope. But when you see a male coworker with the picture of a male "friend" on his desk, instead of a "wife and kids" photo, what goes through your mind?

The point, which obviously went way over your head, was to hold a "straight pride" parade. What better way to make the point than by having the wife and kids there with you?

[justshutupandtakeit]

My parents believed that children were gifts of God and accepted in that light. They were not people who cast the raising of their children on society as you seem to insinuate.Public schools were available by public demand and were considered as a public good provided by the town like roads by the county. There was not a question about whether public schools should exist that is only a question amongst certain intellectual and theoretical circles. No modern society can give up the concept of public education and remain a unified society and the vast majority understands this. Libertarian theory in this regard is as widespread and influential as its vote.

Your concept of forcing parents to provide for their children's education was partially behind the movement to public schools. It was much more effective to force them to educate their children by requiring attendence at private or public schools than by other more cumbersome and intrusive methods.

Civilization is impossible without some degree of "collectivism" which I would call social control, social responsibility and social concern. That is part of the Golden Rule and all the religious strictures on charity imposed by the Judeo/Christian ethic this civilization is based upon. Strange as it may seem much of government flows from the attempt to "Love thy neighbor."

Radical individualism, libertarianism and objectivism all are outside this ethic. One of the reasons they seem to have little appeal.

Individual rights don't even exist outside of a social setting for it is that setting which allows the concept of a right to be defined. In the state of nature where every man is King there are no real rights since nothing stops a man's action. Rights are defined by conflict. Conflict with other men, conflict with groups, and conflict between groups. Once again government steps in to resolve these conflicts between rights. The more rights claimed the bigger the government. Don't those societies with the most rights have the largest governments?

The identification of taxation with theft is shallow rhetoric and not a serious point of controversy. In a representative government holding such a simple-minded and deceptive view is indicative of serious misunderstanding of that form of government.

[Khepera]

Your Dream World

[freefly]

"Either your "responses" didn't respond or they were so poorly written that they are not understandable."

Well, yes, I did write them for someone who is willing -and able- to read and comprehend. Obviously you don't qualify.

"You could try again to accually communicate or just keep muttering in the cave and picking the leaves outta your beard."

Good advice that you should consider taking.

"However, I would just say don't bother since you clearly don't have any idea of what you speak other than your fantasies."

ROTFLMAO! The only one that doesn't have any idea of what they are talking about is you.
You cannot respond to the points brought up and you cannot defend your position.
(Granted, being an apologist for big-government isn't easy, and it is hard on the stomach.)
Instead you come up with crap like this. You are really, really lame...

"Study some history, political philosophy and economics and then we might talk."

I doubt it, obviously the conversation is already beyond your capabilities.

"At present my dealing with gibberish quotient is filled."

I guess that means you won't be posting anymore. (sigh of relief heard throughout the forum)
Really, your arrogance is badly misplaced. You may be a legend in your own mind, but so far you've come across as a buffoon.
A pathetic buffoon at that...

"We must look beyond our individual self (and even self interest) when making decisions that affect society as a whole."

Spoken as a true socialist (collectivist/communist).
You can wiggle all you want to, but you have shown your true colors, you just don't have the guts to admit what your position really is.
Your statement is one that's used by every socialist do-gooder that works to undermine the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's been used by every socialist/communist government that has ever come into existance to justify the things that they have done to the citizens in their countries.
I'll stick with the concept that, by protecting the rights of the individual, the rights of the group are protected as well. It's what the "American way" is supposed to be about. You can keep your "for the good of society" noise. It might fly in a university setting (or down at the local teacher's union meetings) but then, that IS the hotbed of liberalism...they are suckers for that kind of feel-good junk logic. The kids don't know any better and the profs believe their own PR. I'd guess that's why so many of them are clinton-supporting democrats. They like the idea of taxing all to pay for benefits for a few...and ultimatly covering their paychecks.

It's easy to see why those types promote socialism, nursing on the government teat tends to destroy self-pride and makes the sucker tend to hate the individual whose success hasn't come from that government-supported paycheck. They want EVERYBODY to be down at their level. What they refuse to acknowledge is that, ultimatly, someone has to produce to pay the bills. Individuals producing for themselves are far more willing to work than socialist slaves that work for the "good of society". Individuals have made our country great, not bureaucrats in government offices (although some like to claim otherwise). Our success is in spite of the government drones, not because of them. Our founding fathers knew this. That is why they setup a minimalist government. Unfortunatly bureaucrats tend to promote more bureaucracy. The "for the good of society" argument is how they have gotten away with it. We have plenty of examples of how that eventually turns out.
It isn't pretty.