Replies

the religious have fallen hook line and sinker into the trap and surrendered the debate. The battlefield is NOT religion it is logic and reason. By surrendering all the logic and reason as to the reason homosexuality is abnormal and not accepted by a responsible normal civilization, the left EASILY marginalized all objections as “mere faith” and not part of the public debate.

You are right as to debate tactics, so far as your defined situation. But the other side of the argument as to debate tactics is that to argue only from the point that the present homosexual demands are in clear defiance of logic & reason--as they clearly are--is to surrender the religious argument since Genesis.

The reality is that both arguments are essential. Why? Because those who will be persuaded by one, may not be persuaded by the other. There are people with strong reasoning ability. There are others who may lack strong reasoning ability, and need to rely on established guidelines.

Taking your point to the exclusion of all others, is analogous to suggesting that Lot should have gone out into the street to reason with the mob, demanding that he send out his visitors, for the mob's enjoyment.

The real point that should always be included in the argument is that everyone should have the right to decide on whatever basis the decider selects--so long as he does not overtly injure another--on with whom he wants to associate, or identify with, or do business with. This, now often enforced, denial of such right is a direct contradiction of the concept of personal liberty--a concept that should be defended, not abandoned.

Conservatives, who embrace the "Civil Rights" Acts of the 1960s, whether from guilt or confusion spawned in their school years, have abandoned concepts of personal freedom that were once sacred to free peoples. Yes, the present onslaught is an extension--but not in logic. The extension is merely in adding more categories favored for the special privilege of forcing others to accept you against their will, in business dealings.

Your right in that by simple logic hetro and homo are not that same..but my main gripe is with libertarians because homosexual marriage is not libertarian or shouldn't be

Do a simple test
If a government bad homosexual acts would at most be tyranny over a minority ...ban heterosexual acts and at minimum it would be genocide of all humanity...

Heterosexually is a requirement of life like air and water..homosexual a preference like beer and cigarettes..they are not equal in necessity

a prohibition on beer and cigarettes is not equal to a prohibition on air and water now from a libertarian perspective you might say I don't believe the government has the right to prohibit it either ...that's fine..

but to prohibit is different than to provide and promote to provide and promote clean air and public water is not equal of providing in promoting beer and cigarettes to the public.

To say a government should not prohibit is what the left calls a negative right to say the government must provide and promote is with the left called a positive right.

so why are libertarians saying that the government must provide a positive right of marriage?...a libertarian is about negative rights prohibiting the government for getting involved not about the government promoting in providing.

funny I think the new Noah movie might be the most a great teacher of hetro and homo sex

the movie leftest twist of the story is save the animals and kill off mankind...so what goes on the boat?..hetro pairs of everything Noah loves and want to save...

but as for mankind that the left new Noah hates and wants to see die out..he wants no fertile female to survive..it effect his want is homo pairs for man..because man must die out....funny ..I do see a connection in thinking