Posted on 08/14/2010 4:09:18 AM PDT by GonzoII
Wikipedia is an open site. You may edit the FR definition there if you wish. I’ve never done it, and I’m not sure whether you may change another person’s entry, but you can certainly add your own.
“Your arrogance is only exceeded by your dishonest debating tactics.”
What, praytell, is dishonest about my debating tactics? Is me handing you your hat because you do not have a well thought out position dishonest?
You are the one that started getting all huffy and sarcastic. I just let you keep doing it, because it amuses me.
Be nice and I will be nice too. Be arrogant and sarcastic, and I’ll dish that back to you too.
I’ve been debating moral absolutes including homosexual agenda stuff since 2002 on FR. I am tired of libertarians, which is apparently what you may fancy yourself.
As well, you enjoy baiting people.
As you noted, I am a simple person, and highly complicated and duplicitous people are no match for me.
Since the 60’s it’s been on a fast downward track.
Wikipedia just changes it back. It is a far left site and they lie.
As long as we allow the government to dictate what ‘marriage’ is... then government *WILL* dictate what marriage is - depending on the party in charge.
I say we return ‘marriage’ back to the religion that gave it to us. As ‘marriage’ is a holy sancrament, priests/pastors/rabbis/imams/whatever cannot change it’s meaning without defaming G-d.
And thus the institution of marriage is saved from the corruption we now see; a corruption solely caused by having the politicians get their grubby little hands on it.
Sigh... Thanks for the info, Mr. MacWoW.
Sorry for the bad advice, Atom Smasher.
That’s what I get for giving instructions about a site I almost never even read.
Screaming nosedive.
I was in high school in the 60s. Girls had to wear skirts, boys could not wear jeans. Kids were polite to the teachers or they’d get in trouble. Kids who drank and were wild got bad reputations. Girls who got pregnant usually went to homes for unwed mothers and came back afterwards having spent the last year “living with their aunt”.
I remember when a divorced woman moved in the neighborhood and I was so curious to know what a divorced woman looked like. Homosexuals? I had never heard of them.
Girls were encouraged to look forward to marriage and children. That was considered normal.
“I’ve been debating moral absolutes”
You listed nothing that was dishonest as you complained.
I take it your personal moral absolutes don’t include everything you’d like to see in others.
DBeers posted this on another thread. Says it better than I could.
May I suggest you miss a part of the equation.
Government established by the people under God recognizing unalienable rights endowed the people by the Creator and tasked with protecting such rights can NOT remove itself from the moral equation. To do so would be to retreat from upholding the very basis of our government and individual freedom.
The problem here is not that government is involved in morality -the problem is that government assists those who attempt to redefine it. Instead of government defending we government taking a backseat while at the same time assisting those that in essence seek to destroy that which is unalienable by redefining it...
Society chose to value, reward and protect marriage and family LONG before government came along -government simply carries out social mandate when for instance providing tax breaks for children and or legal standing in many regards between husband and wife. Government did not grant these things just as government did not grant life or liberty. How can government redefine these things that the Creator endowed us with? If the rights emanate from the Creator so do as well the definitions.
I’m too simple minded to run around in circles with you. You can debate with fellow Mensa members.
“Come down out of the tower and walk among the people. Society allows things my grandparents would have never condoned.”
You act as if bad behavior was recently invented. Society has had degenerate parts as long as there have been societies.
Neither morality, nor immorality is a recent innovation.
There is a site called Conservapedia. It’s being built slowly and they are more careful about info. Wikipedia is George Soros’ baby.
Yeah. I remember those days. In home ec we made aprons. Wonder if girls today even know what an apron is.
“I’m too simple minded to run around in circles with you.”
If you are truly simple minded, you could at least be consistent. You appear to have no point that you are arguing - other than you don’t like the way I debate.
I actually think we probably agree quite a bit on the issue - but you let pointless personal animus get in the way, and have no sense of humor.
Immorality is more common with each generation. My grandparents raised me and they'd be appalled.
Good night.
I would say that religion is the basis for morality. Government should be restricted to either following their lead... or simply recognizing the morality set by religion.
We, the people, should *NOT* be granting the government the power to set morality.
And, in my view, allowing government to authorize who may or may not get married is usurping the duties of religion. Considering that politics are inherently corrupting in the first place, this inevitably leads to the corrupting of a nation’s morals, too.
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.