Posted on 02/14/2011 7:51:47 AM PST by Kaslin
The point that many make including myself is that the government can no more ban homosexual sex that it can ban murder. Regardless, we see laws against murder. These ;aws are not created because the laws will or can even hope prevent murder but rather because the laws clearly define what society declares necessary and valued conduct supporting moral order versus anarchy.
So, although we can not prevent murder, we can state it is not good and as well not see the government promote it as normal in public or on the public dime...
Codified laws and government may come and go -social order and the common law is the legitimate foundation premise that underlies what is both legitimate governance and legitimate legislation. The declaration of no value regarding homosexual sex was made long before government began as an agent of society incorporating it into written law.
What we see now as evidenced with Proposition 8 is a tyrannical government imposed morality/religion that claims it knows better what is morally right. Again, where does this moral authority come from -the holy book of homosexual sex?
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson wrote one another prolifically during the Constitutional Convention.
All of these convictions, and many more, found their way into the Virginia Plan, which Madison, in consultation with Edmund Randolph, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, and in his extended correspondence with Tom Jefferson in Paris,
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Religious aspects
The roots of the First Amendment can be traced to a bill written by Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) in 1777 and proposed to the Virginia Legislature in 1779. 1It guaranteed freedom of (and from) religion. After an impassioned speech by James Madison, and after some amendments, it became law in that state on 1786-JAN-16
Jefferson was pleased with the constitution, but felt it was incomplete. He pushed for legislation that would guarantee individual rights, including what he felt was the prime guarantee: freedom of and from religion. Madison promised to promote such a bill, in order to gain support for the ratification of the constitution by the State of Virginia. In 1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the constitution; they have since been known as the Bill of Rights.
There are not alternate, or separate but equal moralities.
There are moral absolutes, which are the same in every monotheist religion (as well as some that aren’t, such as Buddhism) and are the foundation of human civilization.
Any more questions?
So, given the choice, you would not outlaw sodomy?
Granted. How far are you willing to use the government to enforce moral behavior?
Liberaltrians are my favorites.
They make no sense, are nuts, and always have a very weak spot or two in their ridiculous armor. They like libertarianism because they like their vices. It’s the sum and substance of the LP party or “unofficial” libertarians. And oh, speaking of “substance”, people who smoke a lot of week get really stupid. I say this as a former weed smoker (many, many long years ago) and it does affect thinking and memory.
You have taken this discussion completely off topic.
The discussion is whether homosexuals need a political organization in order to vote Conservatively. The answer is NO.
I’m with DBeers’ comment above.
As far as the Founders were willing to take it.
The point of this thread is that radical homosexual groups are not Conservative.
I have a friend who is Gay, and he is anything but liberal. He is a staunch Conservative who is against same sex marriage. He doesn’t announce he’s Gay. Not every group that says they are Gay Conservatives is the same. Nor can I take the word of one person who denegrates others who disagree with them. There is no group think here. Gay Conservative is not always an oxymoron.
That sounds like a union card check question? LOL
You do know that many of the Proposition 8 supporters were and have been targeted by homosexual agenda activists who attempt to silence them by intimidation and threat of violence?
Anyway, I would privately vote for or against any such measure based upon its merits alone as my well formed conscience dictated. If public declaration and activity was warranted then I would decide whether or not such a vocation would be for me.
Homosexual groups have a political agenda, homosexual “rights”. That is not a conservative view.
Do you support the homosexual agenda.
Dave - you hinted you didn’t agree with everything the Libertarian Party stood for.
You also stated that libertarianism is the heart of conservatism.
Do you agree with those parts I listed, or not?
To make it easy for you, here they are again:
Making any and all drugs legal, any and all prostitution legal, homosexual marriage, adoption and any and all “gay” rights legal, and any and all pornography legal (including anywhere, such as on buses) are all part of the official Libertarian Party platform.
Do you agree with all, with any, or disagree? Please be clear on which you agree or disagree with. Thanks in advance.
I made no such suggestion. Actually, merely raising the questions here for the purpose of discussion. FR is a place for conservatives to discuss issues. I'm well aware of that.
If it had, it wasn’t nearly as used as it is now. I first remember hearing the term sometime in the late 60s, right in the heart of the hippie and anti-war goings-on. I believe that’s when it really began having widespread use.
You're correct. The early use of the term simply meant a hedonistic, immoral lifestyle. It was in the 60's that it began to be used as an exclusive homosexual euphemism.
Actually, that a gay being a gay advocate... not a conservative who is gay.
There’s too many here that state by simply being gay, you can’t be conservative. Which is bunk.
That said, you can’t be a gay advocate and be a conservative. But then, you don’t have to be gay to be a gay advocate. Just look at California and it’s schools.
Active homosexuals, who act by having perverted sex with persons of their own sex, are by definition unethical, and therefore, not conservative.
Not a good argument. Basically you state that anyone who violates any ethical standard cannot be conservative. Which would mean that anyone who has ever done anything wrong, ever, is not a conservative.
Which eliminates everyone.
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.