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.
If you keep this up, someone may accuse us of having a sense of humor.
THEN where would we be.
Shalom.
P.S. I was disappointed that nobody reacted to my "liberal" crack - er - joke. Man, you have to be so careful what you say on one of the SAD threads.
Number 1 Son: Hey dad, can I have some matches?
Father: No son you may not!
Number 1 Son: But dad I really need some matches.
Father: Your only 8 years old. Why do you need the matches, son?
Number 1 Son: I wanna play with fire. Its a lot of fun Dad please?
Father: No son, playing with fire is dangerous and you can be hurt badly.
Number 1 Son: I won't get hurt dad I know all about fire. I learned about fire in school. It's a good thing fire is. You can get warm if your cold and use it for many good things like cooking food and disposing of trash. It's not dangerous if you're careful. Come on dad I wanna play with fire. Can I?
Father: No son fire is too dangerous and you may get burned or burn down the house. It's very dangerous and I don't want you to play with matches.
Number 1 Son: I won't get hurt I know it. Nute Wilkes down the street plays with fire and his parents gave him some matches. I will wear gloves like he does, they got him asbestos gloves for protection and he wears them so he won't get burned. You can get me some gloves and I'll be really careful. I just want to burn trash for you so you won't have so much trash and everything will be cleaned up for you. I have this worksheet from school and it shows exactly how to play with fire without ever getting hurt. They told us that wanting to play with fire is perfectly natural for people our age and its Ok to have these feelings. Look there is a picture here of a boy lighting a fire. See his gloves? He won't get hurt cause he has gloves and knows how to use fire. The school said they would give us some free asbestos gloves so I won't get hurt. Come on Dad, please?
Father: No son I don't want you to play with fire and I don't care what Nute Wilkes parents allow at their house. I won't allow you to play with fire. Its too dangerous and you will get hurt or you will hurt someone else.
Number 1 Son: Look dad here is a pamphlet from "Fire Starters of America" They say kids my age should be allowed to play with fire and its perfectly normal for us and its safe as long as you follow safety procedures. Look they even tell you how to do it and be safe. They have been suing the government to allow kids to play with fire and got the law changed so that now its Ok. That's why they can teach us about it in school Look here is a picture of Samual Hotrocks the president of Fire Starters. He says we should be allowed to play with fire because its fun and makes us feel good. They say its normal and we are born wanting to play with fire. Come on dad please let me play with fire. It's not bad cause our teacher said. please?
Father: Thinking about playing with fire and playing with fire are two different things, Son. Fire burns thousand of children every year and kills many of them! We have fire fighters and fire stations to put fires out that kids start by accident! Sometimes the fire fighters get killed, too. It costs your Mom and Dad money for fire insurance and our community also pays for the costs of fires. So, you see, not only are you likely to be hurt by playing with fire, but also your family and your friends in our community. Samuel Hotrocks can say all he wants about your "urges". I am telling you that allowing you to follow those feelings would be very irresponsible of me and very dangerous for you!
Number 1 Son: Why! How can I hurt others if I just do it by myself? I am eight! I can handle the the risk.
Father: You're not listening to me, are you?
Number 1 Son: Come on dad! Please?
Father: No!
Number 1 Son: Please I'll be real careful!
Father: No!
(About this time here comes his brother)
Number 2 Son: What you guys talkin' about Daddy?
Father: We are talking about bigger guy stuff. I'll tell you about it when you're old enough.
Number 1 Son: Mr. Hotrocks says he has a right to know about fire, Dad. You have to tell him or you're wrong!
Father: No! Your brother is 4 and is far to young to learn about using fire. He knows I don't want him to play with fire and it is dangerous and he will get hurt. That is all he needs to know!
Number 2 Son: You told me not to play with fire, Daddy!
Father: That's right! Now you go play in your room and leave fire alone.
Number 2 Son: Ok Daddy!
(Number 2 son goes off to play)
Number 1 Son: Mr. Hotrocks says you're wrong to tell Timmy its bad to play with fire, Dad. He says you're a Bigot if you won't change your rigid way of thinking about fireplay. He says you're ignorant and superstitious when you think this way. You are just going along with what Grams and Gramps taught you when you were little. This is old fashion and Mr. Hotrocks calls it "stinkin' thinkin'". Grams and Gramps don't understand that boys my age are what Mr. Hotrocks calls "emotionally evolved". We can handle things better than you could when you were little and TV was black and white. My teacher told me that people thought in black and white in those days, too. My teacher says that you and Mom are trying to "repress" me. I want to play with some fire and you should let me because its normal and its OK to do it. Please? They show kids playing with fire on TV and it looks like fun. Please?
Father: Look, just because other grown-ups have told you it is OK and you see kids do it on TV does not mean that it is a good thing to do. There are lots of ways to have fun that won't hurt you or others. You have lots of toys and friends to play with that won't put you or anyone else in harm's way.
Number 1 Son: It's hateful for you to not let me play with fire dad. You're just being mean and superstitious. You hate me and I hate you! You're not doing what's right because you're as stupid as a doorknob. Your thinking stinks!! And its not right for you to keep important fire information from Timmy. They told us in school that all kids need to know the proper way to play with fire and you're not being right here, Dad. Please tell Timmy about fireplay and let me play with fire.
(Mental note to speak with this teacher)
Father: I have told you no and I mean No! I am responsible for keeping you safe. I do not have to explain my reasons anymore. You aren't willing to listen, anyway. Quit asking me.
Number 1 Son: Please?
Father: NO! Stop asking!
Number 1 Son: Come on Dad Please?
Father: NO! NO! NO!
Number 1 Son: You're mean! Your Stupid! My teacher says your a Dullard and the Government says he is right. You don't know anything and I hate you. Your an Evil tyrant. You don't love me. You're like the Nazis in Germany. You run this house like a concentration camp.
Father: Go to your room and stay there until I call you!
Number 1 Son: You hate me! You want to keep me locked up like in jail! You're evil and stupid.
(Son stomps out slamming the door) BANG!
Has this ever happened to you? If you have children you know exactly what I'm talking about. Is the father hateful and stupid? Is he basing his opinion on faulty thinking? Is he just a bigot and superstitious? I believe he is not stupid. I believe that he has only the best intention for his son. He loves his son and does not want him to suffer.
You know this got me to thinking. Of all of the conversations I have had here on this board this reminds me most of the ones I have with the homosexuals and their supporters. These people act like my children only they are supposed to be adults. I cannot believe that adults would behave this way but, there it is. A conversation begins with questions on my position on homosexuality. I give my perceptions and am given a litany of reasons as to why my beliefs are invalid. I offer my rebuttal, repeat my stance and my reasons for my stance and then, I have learned, hold on for the usual tirade. Predictably, the onslaught of name calling, slanders as to my character and attacks on my faith begin. They demand that I repeat point for point my reasoning and then they demean it and toss in ad hominem attacks. Every time! It's unbelievable! Its just like talking to my kids.
We parents have a name for the way we deal with our children when they will not listen to reason. It is called "The Broken Record Technique". They ask the question. We provide them with answers aimed at their developmental level. When kids don't like what they hear, their response is to ask the same question over and over. They no longer hear your reasons, nor do they wish to consider any alternatives beyond their own immediate gratification. The "Broken Record" is that constant, unaltered response we parents give when we know that their "Why" is no longer a question but a willful refusal to accept our discipline. As they mature, the boys have become better able to give reasons for their choices and show that they understand the effects that their choices have on themselves and on others. When I see one of my sons delay immediate gratification in exchange for a healthy option, I am very proud of them. I know that they are growing up. Our conversations and our debates have become deeper and more meaningful. I learn a lot from them at these times, too. Broken records can be tossed aside.
I love my fellow citizens! I love Americans! I only want them to be healthy and productive members of society just the same as I love my children. How long do you put up with this type of attitude with your children? Do you punish them when they are disrespectful? Do you send them to their room for a time out? I bet its not too long before you send them to their room or ignore their pleas. They are children and do not know any better. They need guidance and discipline.
Individuals who insist in engaging in dangerous behavior and who also insist that you approve and facilitate their behavior, are juvenile and seem to have an arrest in their development. They have never grown up and need guidance. Some of them need discipline to help them grow into their role as adults. In their ignorance, they are like little children. They have not gained my respect and they have not learned any more than my 3 year old. Their choices hurt others and, ultimately, themselves. At this point, they will probably cry out "Shame on you, Society, you should have warned us!" Unfortunately, at that point, it will be too late!
As a result we have become a tad sensitized to this situation and may be over compensating. I hope you will all bear with us as we continue to learn.
It's starting to seem a little creepy.
Thanks in advance.
So how do you suppose this trashes freedom of speech? What speech are we eliminating?
Uhhh.... aren't they in prison (by your directive)?
How does imprisoning homosexuals violate their freedom of speech?
That can't possibly be a serious question.... can it?
I have asked you not to drag me into every conversation that you have. In that, I am voicing an objection to your tendency to raise my name in conversation with others, falsely attributing statements to me when I am not here to rebutt them.
This would seem to me, to be a rather obvious common courtesy.
Now back to the subject at hand.
You really don't understand why your plan to imprison all homosexuals, would be depriving them of their right to free speech (along with countless other rights)?
You really don't understand why your plan to imprison all homosexuals, would be depriving them of their right to free speech (along with countless other rights)?
I agree, and as you know have been supporting the use of the word pervert in this context. I accept your rebuke regarding the word faggot.
Thanks for the update.
Shalom.
All the time!
But I'm getting wiser. And I don't need to get sucked in on FR.
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.