 |
Read the truth ! ! !
If you want to read the plan then just browse my site.
Homosexuals are not normal and they are not 10% of the population.
Posted on 02/22/2002 6:17:19 AM PST by ArGee
Q: Why should society be involved in personal issues such as (marriage, drug use, homosexual sex, etc.)?
A:People exist in society not by convenience but because people are social by nature. We do not exist well in a vacuum. Part of the function of our society is to maintain norms of interaction that will allow us to survive. We call these norms our culture. Historically, cultures must be based on concrete fundamental truths. They can't be based on the whims of the moment or they will fall apart. In fact, historically, those cultures that have lasted the longest were based on concrete fundamental truths and they fell only when the societies stopped enforcing those rules. To date, only one culture in all of human history has been able to reconstruct itself after it fell, and that was because it returned to those concrete fundamental truths and cherished them until it could regain its land. I'm talking about Jewish culture and Israel.
America was founded on concrete fundamental truths. France was not. Both governments had similar ideals, but America had a culture to sustain those ideals and the government has been working here for over 250 years. You can't say the same for France because their culture is not based on concrete fundamental truths. If America lets those truths go, we will go the way of France, which is headed for the same fate as Babylon or Ninevah or Rome or any other ancient culture.
Q: Why should society care what individuals do?
A: If decent human beings don't stand up and fight for our foundational culture, our republic will be lost, because as moral values are tossed aside, the government will be there to regulate the behavior produced by those loss of morals. A climate of immorality only gives the government an opportunity to expand.
Q: Social and/or legal discouragement of homosexuality won't reduce the occurance of SAD
A: If the practice of homosexuality is shunned people would be more eager to overcome the defects in their lives than succumb to them. SAD is curable, you just have to want to be normal again. Unfortunately in today's society we support these SADs in their sickness giving them no motivation to be cured.
Society is essentially enabling the deviants to live a comfortable life as a deviant instead of encouraging them to seek a cure.
Q: If gays were allowed to marry like normal people then the negatives (promiscuity, disease, domestic violence) associated with existing gay (male) lifestyle would decrease.
A: A 'monogomous' SAD couple were responsible for the rape and torture of Jesse Dirkhising. The incidence of monogomy in the SAD culture is extrememly small. What makes you think that a piece of paper will cause people to be monogomous when they spend all their time now being promiscuous? The only thing that will stop SAD promiscuity is SADs getting healed.
Q: Why should evidence that one can discourage welfare dependence by making welfare unavailable tell us anything about whether we can discourage homosexuality by keeping marriage unavailable?
A: They are both behaviors. Make the results of the behavior unpleasant and the behavior will eventually go away. The problem now is that SADs are coddled rather than forced to face their perversion and it's results. Therefore they choose to remain in the SAD lifestyle instead of seeking a cure.
NOTE: This isn't just a SAD issue. This applies to all sexual deviancy.
Q: Why would allowing 'gay' marriage mean allowing other perversions to marry? Leaving aside that marriages to dogs or dead people or children cannot be consensual, and are therefore not comparable to the mutual commitment of two adult humans (of the same or different sexes), why can't we just say "yes" to one and "no" to the others?
A: The union of two men or two women is not comparable to the union of one man to one woman as the SAD union has no potential to produce children (which as we all know are the future of our society). So right now our laws do say "yes" to one and "no" to the other. We say yes to beneficial marriages (those that have the potential to produce new members of society) and no to detrimental marriages (those that have no potential to produce). Rather than start down the slippery slope of allowing all perversions to marry lets just say no to all of them.
(Note that inability to have children due to impotence etc in a normal couple is usually not known until after the marriage. The institution must support the potential to have children which ONLY male-female *normal* marriages provide)
Q: Comparing 'gay' marriage to bestial (pedophilial, necrophilial etc) marriage is not a valid comparison.
A: If we break the definition to include one detrimental type of union we will eventually have to break it to allow all of them. Look at how the pedophiles are lobbying the APA to be delisted as a disease (or they may already have been) they are about 15-20 years behind the SADs. History shows us that compromise on our core values always results in the death of those values.
After all pedophilial marriage is not comparable to beastial marriage because its two humans involved. And bestial marriage is not comparable to necrophilial marriage becasue two living things are involved. Etc ad nauseum. There will always be a reason why the next favorite perversion is somehow better than the second next favorite perversion. Let's just sidestep the whole thing and disallow all the perversions (which is what our laws do now)
Q: But I also think that gays can only be more likely to behave in manner more supportive of good social order if society treats them as if it expects such responsible behavior.
A: You are correct. The practice of homosexual sex is not now, nor will it ever be, 'responsible behavior'. Therefore we must expect, and make that expectation known, that the SADs seek a cure to their behavior.
Q: Shutting gays out of "respectable" society and its institutions only encourages rebellious and self-destructive behavior.
A: The problem is that SADs are not shut out of respectable society. You can't fire someone just because they are a pervert. You can't kick them out of rental property you own, you can't socially penalize them in any way. If we did, we'd have less SADs. The practice of homosexual sex is not now, nor will it ever be, "responsible behavior"
Q: Homosexuality is genetic. Therefore it's ok
A: No study has ever found a 'gay' gene. In fact studies using identical twins have shown that there is no genetic component to SAD.
For the sake of argument however, lets assume that a 'gay' gene is found. SAD then falls into the area of other genetic diseases like alcoholism. Just because an alcoholic is genetically predisposed to the disease should society excuse his self-damaging behavior and let him drink as much as he wants? NO! Society demands that he control his behavior and stay sober in order to be a member of respectable society. Drunks aren't welcome in most places including most places of business.
Likewise, if SAD is genetic, the SADs should be shut out of respectable society until they control their behavior. This includes shutting them out of any place where children or respectable people will be. Socially repugnant behavior is socially repugnent whether it is genetic or not.
Q: Can you prove that homosexual behavior is harmful?
A: To individuals? The medical evidence is overwhelming. To society? The only way to "prove" such a thing is to design an experiment where there are two groups of societies where the only distinguishing feature is that one allows homosexual behavior and the other doesn't. Then we have to watch and see what happens. Even if we could do such a thing, wouldn't it be a tad unethical to try?
A more telling question is, can you prove that homosexual behavior is not harmful to a society. Remember we started with a society that didn't permit homosexual behavior and was doing well. In all of history, homosexual behavior has been shunned, or the society did not stand. While that does not constitute proof, it does stand as evidence. We have a standard that works. Now you want to tinker with that standard. The risk to our children is great if homosexual behavior is inded harmful. Why should we let you tinker? Give me something concrete that says you aren't doing any harm before I let you experiment with my society. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Q: Why do you focus on homosexuality? Aren't adultery and fornication just as much an abomination to God? Those are heterosexual sins. Why don't you pay any attention to them?
A: Christians don't just focus on SAD. But in the public policy arena the adulterers and fornicators are happy to keep the issue private. When such issues become public Christians do respond, as when Gary Hart had to withdraw from his presidential bid, or when Bill Clinton was impeached. We even respond to our own, as when Jimmy Swaggart was caught with a prostitute, or when Gary Bauer was meeting with a female junior staffer behind closed doors for long periods of time. Homosexual Activists are the ones who force Christians to address SAD as a public policy issue. If they had been happy to keep their sexual deviancy a private issue, Christians would be happy to be focusing on other things.
But while all sin is sin from the moral perspective, there is a progression from less destructive to more destructive from the social and personal perspective. There is also a progression from soft heart (like King David) to hard heart (like Pharoah). Adultery and fornication are wrong and destructive. And they are more wrong and destructive than greed and gluttony, which are more wrong and destructive than white lies. Picture a slippery slope on the way to a completely hardened heart. Some sins are closer to the soft hart, other sins are closer to the hard heart. The Bible, especially Romans 1, makes it clear that SAD is the final step. Romans tells us that "God gave them up..." God doesn't give up easily. SADs are very nearly completely hardened. Ex-gays will tell you how hard it is to come out of that lifestyle. They will also tell you how important it is.
Um - Mardi Gras? Was that a trick question?
A Straight Pride parade would be called (drum roll please) a Straight Pride parade.
Mardi Gras is about celebrating perversity, not about straight pride.
I guess you missed all those posts about the fact that some homosexual behavior is the same as SAD and just as bad. But it's hardly celebrated as Straight Pride.
Shalom.
You stated that they (David and Solomon) were not tyrants.
And you were of course, wrong.
Personally I could care less whether you have the integrity to speak to those you call "perverts" to their face, or whether you choose to hide in relative anonymity and snipe at them in secret.
That's your problem, not mine.
I just think you need to think about your own failings once in awhile.
Maybe instead of asking God to help everyone else, you might consider asking him to help you with your self-righteousness.
Surely you are trying to take it on as a personal statement directed at yourself but I see no indication that it was. I would never say you where a pervert but would refer to you as a defender of perverts. I have no evidence of you being a pervert and I do not believe anyone has called you that.
Not at all.
I simply asked who he WAS refering to.
But unfortunately the courage to use the smear, doesn't translate into the courage to stand behind it.
Have you heard of the Godwin's Law? The first debate participant who calls his/her opponent a Nazi loses the argument. Your statement above calls for an amendment...
Regards
|
|
Read the truth ! ! !
If you want to read the plan then just browse my site.
Homosexuals are not normal and they are not 10% of the population.
Many debaters consider their opponents nazis or defenders of nazis. But they don't use the term. If you don't see other ways to 'enhance' your argument, be my guest.
Regards.
I would admit to being a defender of individual freedoms of homosexuals. I would expect you to refer to me as such. We can argue about their rights to adopt children, marry, etc. I would take your arguments seriously, both sides of the argument have their pluses and minuses. But as soon as you start calling me a defender of perverts, I'm out of here. It's not that I can't take it, I've been here a while. I just don't want to waste my time on a debate where my opponent does not respect me, is not willing to use some restraint. Of course you are free to speak your mind, use whatever terms you want. But what is your goal? Convince your opponent? Reach an understanding? Learn something? If this is the case then you should find it easy to watch your language. But if you only want to 'show' your opponent how wrong he is... As I said, be my guest.
Regards.
According to the Dictionary.
per·vert Pronunciation Key (p
r-vûrt
)
tr.v. per·vert·ed, per·vert·ing, per·verts
vûrt
) n : a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior
[syn: deviant, deviate, degenerate] v 1: corrupt morally [syn: corrupt, demoralize, debauch, debase, profane, vitiate, deprave, misdirect] 2: change the meaning of [syn: twist, twist around, convolute, sophisticate] 3: change the inherent purpose or function of something [syn: misuse, abuse]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
First, you are using the term correctly if homosexuality is in fact not "right, proper, or good". According to your moral code it's not. I can't argue with that. The problem is that some people do not share your moral code. Something to think about.
Second, when you talk to a person who, let's say, is not that smart, do you call him an idiot and point to a page in the dictionary if he complains? Probably not. Why? Wouldn't you be technically correct?
Regards.
I am also using this part of the definition as well
To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse.
a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior
I am using it correctly in that sense as well. I understand that not all people share Gods moral code or even the rules of nature and personally I have thought about that aspect of this discussion. I understand that there are those who choose to have no morals and do not have a belief in God and are spiritually dead. I pray for their souls and realize that, that is all I can do for them. It is a pity because they have no hope beyond what they can see before them and no real foundation to discern right from wrong.
Second, when you talk to a person who, let's say, is not that smart, do you call him an idiot and point to a page in the dictionary if he complains? Probably not. Why? Wouldn't you be technically correct?
An Idiot is a person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers.
The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use however and a person who was truly an idiot would not really be worth conveying that information to because, they would be incapable of truly understanding in the first place. You are trying to make it seem like I have made an ad hominem attack which is not the case.
The term pervert is by in large an accepted term whose meaning is generally thought to be inoffensive such that you could utter it in the company of proper ladies without causing discomfort. Perversion is the accepted term for the behavior we are addressing when in reference to Sodomites. Generally those who would be offended by the term are those for whom the term fits. I am not accusing you of being Homosexual but I am pointing this out as a general truth. Although you raise some important concerns about the term, none warrants suspending its use.
The real question is not, Will some be offended?, but, Will those offended exceed the number of those motivated to change how they are living? I do not believe that we can estimate that aspect of this point. To insist that truth is in poor taste is hypocritical. If we then claim that it is offensive for Sodomites to be confronted by the truth, then we are making the judgment that Homosexuals are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they must make a decision. This view of Homosexuals is unworthy .
When you insist that truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy because the activity (Homosexual Lifestyle) we are addressing is highly offensive to heterosexuals in general and Christians in particular. You are demanding that you not be offended while at the same time you offend. The "new homophobia" is the fear of saying anything that would possibly offend a homosexual or the homosexual political movement. I am not not infected by the new homophobia and therefore, I speak my mind. I am not calling anyone names when I use these terms although you have tried to paint that picture of me. This is not an ad hominem attack but a descriptive term the way I used it.
The way you have approached this issue has been an effort to silence me by forcing me to use your terms instead of my own. This is an attempt on your part to cover up the truth which you find so offensive. You don't want to discuss the critical issues in the marketplace of ideas, you want to silence anyone who opposes you.
"Is it so incredibly bad for two people of the same sex to date and sleep together?" Yes it is. It's not just bad, it's immoral, it's a sin. It's an aberration and an abomination to God. But I guess it depends upon your moral perspective. If you don't believe in the God of the Bible then you couldn't say that. You don't so that's why you don't. But I do without embarrassment.
I also will offer you my opinion without embarrassment for what I have said here because I have spoken the truth and the fact that you feel uncomfortable tells me that you recognize it as the truth.
Will you be joining her?
Correct. From this point on I will not respond to those who (think they) know but don't understand on these SASU talking point threads (no matter how wrong or easily refutable they are). I encourage all others to do the same.
God Save America (Please)
The primary reason I won't identify the perverts by name to OWK is because it's not his business if they haven't already identified themselves to him. I'm not a gossiper.
The secondary reason is that I don't actually keep a list. I know that more than one SAD have identified themselves to me recently and I have debated them openly on that thread. But I didn't write their names down and don't remember who they are right now. If they pop up out of the woodwork again, and they give me permission, I may send a FReepmail to OWK and say, "Here's one" but probably not. What some third party may or may not be is not germaine to any discussion between OWK and me, and I can't imagine why he wants to insert himself into this.
Unless, as I said, it is a not-so-subtle attempt to get me to violate one of the rules of common decency.
Shalom.
SADs are perverts. By strict interpretation, anyone who does not contain their sexual behavior within a monagamous heterosexual marriage is a pervert. The fellow who dropped trou and made it with a goat in front of a trainload of people is a pervert.
Is that so hard to understand?
Shalom.
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.