Posted on 02/22/2010 9:06:23 PM PST by DesertRenegade
How wrong you are. Government must protect the innocence of children. Instead, the liberal establishment has put its entire weight behind destroying their lives at the whim of careless mothers, seducing them on the taxpayer's dime, pimping them to the powerful media and entertainment lobbies, exploiting them by handing them over to social experimentation by degenerates and abandoning them to a future of debt and privation.
Vitamin C is a good vitamin. But if you take Vitamin C without a balance of all the other essential nutrients, it can burn holes in your innards and damage you. Likewise, a concern for limited government does not make one a conservative in the absence of all the other essential tenets of conservatism.
The Paulites are another extreme, of course. They seem to think that America was once Swiss in its outside orientation, basically ignoring all American foreign policy outside of Washington's farewell speech.
I believe anybody can exchange promises anytime they want to, with or without a ceremony and without interference”, based on your principal of gov, non-interference, and that “sodomy laws were improper and that Lawrence v. Texas was correctly decided,” and that “I don't want the government to do a damn thing for or against homosexuals.”
..to be consistent, you must favor polygamy as well as bestiality being legalized.
Your error is that the gov. should not make laws regulating moral such behavior, but while it is indeed dangerous when it does, if its moral view, as is often the case in Communism, is unjust, however no govs can escape making such, as all legal and educational system rely on moral beliefs.
..without snooping into peoples houses, unless they are promoting it.
Bears repeating.
This just in: Pentagon OKs lifting ban on women in submarines. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61M6LW20100224 What wisdom. Anyone want to post it?
It’s posted here, and I just pinged the Moral Absolutes list to it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2457877/posts?page=1
Fast work soldier!
Will there be ladies-only subs now?
(I can see it now. The USS PMS.)
The old liberal canard: "You can't legislate morality."
No, but it beats the hell out of legislating immorality.
And you can legislate moral behaviour.
That has been religion’s greatest mistake since first achieving power under Constantine. Christ denied His kingdom was of this world or that perfection or something like it was achievable by fiat.
By that token, then, we should stop working to redeem the world -- "You are the salt of the earth. But what good is salt if it has lost its flavor? Can you make it salty again? It will be thrown out and trampled underfoot."
And I guess that means Wilberforce should not have worked to abolish the slave trade by peaceable means.
Or The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (a Republican, btw), should not have fought for civil rights against Dems of the like of Al Gore's father.
But it doesn’t stop many people who call themselves Christians from trying over and over and ultimately becoming their own enemy in the process.
That isn't what's happening here...
Cheers!
The homosexuals like to make a big fuss over the "self-righteousness" of the Church.
Forgetting that (by definition) nobody is more self-righteous than someone who refuses to repent.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Called third strike.
"Sick" is what you get when you seroconvert for HIV.
As for "not natural" --show me a man who has given birth after being rectally inseminated by another man, or after ingesting his semen.
Cheers!
Related to bot subjects is George Washington and the 110 rules of conduct http://www.foundationsmag.com/civility.html. Might make a good post about now. His GENERAL ORDERS show his opinion of DADT also: http://historyofideas.org/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=WasFi11.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=69&division=div1
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
No, smarty pants; they are essentially public health values. Unfortunately, any public health values involving homosexual behavior have been rendered politically incorrect by their well-funded activism, putting public health in jeopardy.
I would additionally like to point out to you that laws prohibiting murder and stealing also reflect religious values explicitly expressed in the Ten Commandments. So, by your convoluted logic, they must be "oppressive" laws, as well.
I forget now
“Yes, but what is a conservative foreign policy?”
US policy always changes and adjusts to the threats. Key is keeping strong militarily to face potential threats. From the PostWWII period it was Containment with some tweeking by Reagan to put more pressure on.
The Bush Doctrine is appropriate, though managed poorly by his Administration imo. But we need to keep the policy of attacking states that train,fund,quarter terrorists...whetherit be with intel, financial, political, covert or overt military responses.
Homosexuals should be prosecuted for sexual harassment of children when they insist on inserting their agenda into the schools. They should be arrested for stalking or harassing an unwilling heterosexual who does not want their advances. They should be prosecuted for trespassing on religious services and for terrorizing religious believers such as the supporters of Prop 8. They should be prosecuted for public lewdness whenever their behavior in public events such as Gay Games, OutFest or Folsom Street Fair would be prosecuted if it were done by a heterosexual -- public nudity, simulated intercourse, actual intercourse, and the public display of sex toys and gear in front of hapless passersby and children.
Do you think homosexuals should be imprisoned?
If a homosexual breaks a law for which the penalty is imprisonment, of course.
Do you think homosexuals should be castrated?
It is typical of crypto-lefties like yourself to ask "when did you stop beating your wife" questions that imply an intolerance not in evidence. Many posting here are sincerely concerned about the campaign to seduce and indoctrinate children and to destroy the protections for the majority of children that traditional marriage provides. They are more than capable of separating the behavior from the person. Why are you having such difficulty doing the same?
Do you think homosexuals should be shot?
As above, another loaded, "gotcha" question. But since you asked, all first-degree child rapists should automatically be eligible for the death penalty. If they happen to be gay, they should receive no special considerations due to their sob stories about childhood abuse or their point of view as gay people or as NAMBLA indoctrination victims.
How much government do you want?
Enough government to protect our national security, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our natural family norms and the innocence of our children. Children deserve a mother and a father, and to know whenever possible their biological parents and extended family. The entire gay agenda works against these conservative values.
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.