Posted on 04/04/2015 6:53:25 AM PDT by lqcincinnatus
At the simplest level, there are seven questions central to the debate over same-sex marriage that rarely if ever gain public review. I have written on them below, and what you read here has been refashioned for proper presentation before the United States Supreme Court when it reviews four cases on the matter April 28, 2015. 1. What is the Source for Unalienable Rights? 2. Is Marriage a Right or a Liberty? 3. How Does the Creator Define Human Sexuality? 4. God-given Rights or Human-defined Rights? 5. Is the Declaration of Independence Honored Anymore? 6. Can a Healthy Social Order be Rooted in Pansexuality? 7. Is Homosexuality a Fixed Trait?
(Excerpt) Read more at virtueonline.org ...
Yep, but the queers like to claim 10% so that was the number I went with. Almost couldn’t bring myself to use the “liberal” number.
I agree, with one pretty significant caveat.
All principles of human rights can be logically derived IF you accept one first principle: All men are created equal.
The problem is that I don’t think it is possible to derive that principle itself without reference to a higher power.
WHY are all men created equal?
All men are equal because God created them so.
Men are simply not equal in any other sense. We are equal because we are all equally children of God, and therefore equal brothers and sisters.
One of the most eloquent expressions of the contrary view is from John Calhoun in 1848. I happen to disagree with him, but he expresses himself very well indeed.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/oregon-bill-speech/
I agree. My point has simply been with regard to the effectiveness or otherwise of Biblical doctrine in the present climate. IMO, it is completely counter-productive except among those who already agree 100%.
And what’s the point of preaching to them?
“It is wrong for a gov’t to decide what is marriage”
That’s arguable. The people can decide, especially in the sovereign states.
We can all agree that the word “marriage” needs to be taken back. 2 or more homosexuals are not a “marriage”. It’s a soulless legal arrangement.
Yeppers, only libs should control social issues - like homosexuality (SARC)!
When present efforts consist of the equivalent of banging our heads against a stone wall, I propose looking around for a window.
Yet somehow proposing a shift away from ineffective tactics is portrayed as a desire to surrender.
Has your approach been working so well that you think it’s appropriate to continue?
I wish you were right, but I don’t think you are. I think the country has move a great way to the left on social issues, to the point where what only a short time ago defined as radically leftist are now considered sort of conservative.
Take a whack at it, and I hope you succeed. But I don’t think you will.
Reminding blacks and Hispanics and less devout whites that there is an issue of rejecting Christ in their liberal/libertarian voting is not counterproductive.
To remove God and morality from the discussion of voting in support of gay marriage, pretty much eliminates discussion and supports the libertarians/leftists.
The people gave the gov’t the power to decide what is marriage. That didn’t work out so well. Perhaps the next time people want to enshrine a religious act in law, they will think about the long-term consequences.
Govt can grant legal status to citizens. I dont care if it is two or twenty two.....its a contract that anyone can create.
Then, organized religions would be the ones defining the word marriage.......as it should be.
I’ve been talking all along about the idea of trying to use biblical quotes as ammunition in the battle over social issues. I don’t think it works, is in fact highly counterproductive.
I don’t have the answers, but the first necessity to develop answers is to recognize what the question is.
I do know that the solution has little to do with politics. The mess we’re in today is entirely the consequence of cultural trends from 10 and 15 years ago.
Politics is downstream of culture. Very few conservatives ever really seem to understand what this means, which is that winning elections is in the long run utterly pointless unless you can influence the culture. Elections in the long run will inevitably follow the culture.
I think the government cannot butt out of the definition Too much eval and other status considerations.
It would seem government and regions could define marriage or juts about anyone else. Since the issue seems to me to boil down to legal and contractual issues, the people (the government) could make the decisions.
Two issues with that:
We voted on the definition in some states and judges overturned the vote. That;s wrong and needs to be undone.
Since there are contractual issues, how can we deal with different definitions in different states. When people move from one state to another the receiving state has an obligation to honor the contract established in the other state. IIRC. So, it may need to be a federal definition.
first sentence. eval = legal
government and religions
So you think that conservatives have only fought social issues by quoting the Bible? If not, then what has been a “loosing” argument that conservatives have presented?
I don’t have the answers, but the first necessity to develop answers is to recognize what the question is.
Ok, since the topic is homosexuality in this thread, you surely have an answer to this, correct? If you say you still don’t, that’s OK; I haven’t heard many good ones, but I have heard a few excellent ones. I will share one if you still do not have an answer to this.
I do know that the solution has little to do with politics. The mess we’re in today is entirely the consequence of cultural trends from 10 and 15 years ago.
Please confirm, you think that no laws passed over, say, the last 70 years by politicians and judges (they are a part of the political system too) had any consequence on the culture of our society?
Politics is downstream of culture. Very few conservatives ever really seem to understand what this means, which is that winning elections is in the long run utterly pointless unless you can influence the culture. Elections in the long run will inevitably follow the culture.
So you are saying that culture should or should not be a part of culture? I’m a bit confused here when you state first that we should not be involved in social issues but say here that “Politics is downstream of culture”.
I have to step away right now, but will be looking forward to your response in a couple of hours.
The laws with regard to these issues, and indeed over pretty much all issues, are in the long run merely a reflection of people’s attitudes towards them.
Those attitudes for most people are formed only peripherally by politics and religion. They’re instead formed by mass culture, especially movies, TV and music. These fields have been dominated for at least 50 years by progressives.
Our political culture today is pretty much where our mass culture was 20 years ago. 20 years from now our political culture will be about where our mass culture is today, which is a pretty scary thought.
Tocqueville pointed out a long time ago that in America the general opinion is far and away the most powerful force. Most people go along. When the media is able, accurately or not, to portray a certain POV as “the norm,” it is immensely powerful. As people adapt to what they see as the “new normal,” it becomes the new normal.
The only solution, IMO, is to take back the culture. I just have no idea how to do that.
For starters, we can stop funding it. Choose companies that don't support the homosexual agenda, if possible. There are plenty of alternatives in banking, auto service, and many other types of businesses.
If you don't need something and buying from an hrc.org partner is your only option, don't buy it.
Of course, the main weakness in this is that enough people have to join in, and that doesn't seem to be happening.
Oh, as someone else suggested to me, donate to tax deductible charities. That's less tax dollars for the current administration to fund homo-friendly programs with.
1 – Are you saying that conservatives Christians should or should not involve themselves politically in the morality of homosexuality (since homosexuality is the topic of this thread)? I’m a bit confused when you first state that we should not be involved in social issues but then say, “Politics is downstream of culture”.
I see that your statement, “ The only solution, IMO, is to take back the culture.” implies that conservatives should stay out of this issue politically; but it is not definitive; it does not say, “Conservatives should not involve themselves in social issues (such as homosexuality) as part of their political agenda.”
2 - Do you think that conservatives have only fought the homosexual issue by quoting the Bible? If no, then what has been a particular “loosing” argument about homosexuality (since this is the topic of this thread) that conservative Christians have presented? If you don’t have an answer to this, that’s OK. Just answer, “I can’t recall one”, I will not fault you for it. I think I have a reason why you would think that “dragging” God or the Bible into the discussion promptly ends it, and I will show you what it is after you answer these two simple questions definitively. I will then also let you know what I think conservative Christians should and should not do.
Good starters!
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.