Posted on 02/22/2002 6:17:19 AM PST by ArGee
Q: Why should society be involved in personal issues such as (marriage, drug use, homosexual sex, etc.)?
A:People exist in society not by convenience but because people are social by nature. We do not exist well in a vacuum. Part of the function of our society is to maintain norms of interaction that will allow us to survive. We call these norms our culture. Historically, cultures must be based on concrete fundamental truths. They can't be based on the whims of the moment or they will fall apart. In fact, historically, those cultures that have lasted the longest were based on concrete fundamental truths and they fell only when the societies stopped enforcing those rules. To date, only one culture in all of human history has been able to reconstruct itself after it fell, and that was because it returned to those concrete fundamental truths and cherished them until it could regain its land. I'm talking about Jewish culture and Israel.
America was founded on concrete fundamental truths. France was not. Both governments had similar ideals, but America had a culture to sustain those ideals and the government has been working here for over 250 years. You can't say the same for France because their culture is not based on concrete fundamental truths. If America lets those truths go, we will go the way of France, which is headed for the same fate as Babylon or Ninevah or Rome or any other ancient culture.
Q: Why should society care what individuals do?
A: If decent human beings don't stand up and fight for our foundational culture, our republic will be lost, because as moral values are tossed aside, the government will be there to regulate the behavior produced by those loss of morals. A climate of immorality only gives the government an opportunity to expand.
Q: Social and/or legal discouragement of homosexuality won't reduce the occurance of SAD
A: If the practice of homosexuality is shunned people would be more eager to overcome the defects in their lives than succumb to them. SAD is curable, you just have to want to be normal again. Unfortunately in today's society we support these SADs in their sickness giving them no motivation to be cured.
Society is essentially enabling the deviants to live a comfortable life as a deviant instead of encouraging them to seek a cure.
Q: If gays were allowed to marry like normal people then the negatives (promiscuity, disease, domestic violence) associated with existing gay (male) lifestyle would decrease.
A: A 'monogomous' SAD couple were responsible for the rape and torture of Jesse Dirkhising. The incidence of monogomy in the SAD culture is extrememly small. What makes you think that a piece of paper will cause people to be monogomous when they spend all their time now being promiscuous? The only thing that will stop SAD promiscuity is SADs getting healed.
Q: Why should evidence that one can discourage welfare dependence by making welfare unavailable tell us anything about whether we can discourage homosexuality by keeping marriage unavailable?
A: They are both behaviors. Make the results of the behavior unpleasant and the behavior will eventually go away. The problem now is that SADs are coddled rather than forced to face their perversion and it's results. Therefore they choose to remain in the SAD lifestyle instead of seeking a cure.
NOTE: This isn't just a SAD issue. This applies to all sexual deviancy.
Q: Why would allowing 'gay' marriage mean allowing other perversions to marry? Leaving aside that marriages to dogs or dead people or children cannot be consensual, and are therefore not comparable to the mutual commitment of two adult humans (of the same or different sexes), why can't we just say "yes" to one and "no" to the others?
A: The union of two men or two women is not comparable to the union of one man to one woman as the SAD union has no potential to produce children (which as we all know are the future of our society). So right now our laws do say "yes" to one and "no" to the other. We say yes to beneficial marriages (those that have the potential to produce new members of society) and no to detrimental marriages (those that have no potential to produce). Rather than start down the slippery slope of allowing all perversions to marry lets just say no to all of them.
(Note that inability to have children due to impotence etc in a normal couple is usually not known until after the marriage. The institution must support the potential to have children which ONLY male-female *normal* marriages provide)
Q: Comparing 'gay' marriage to bestial (pedophilial, necrophilial etc) marriage is not a valid comparison.
A: If we break the definition to include one detrimental type of union we will eventually have to break it to allow all of them. Look at how the pedophiles are lobbying the APA to be delisted as a disease (or they may already have been) they are about 15-20 years behind the SADs. History shows us that compromise on our core values always results in the death of those values.
After all pedophilial marriage is not comparable to beastial marriage because its two humans involved. And bestial marriage is not comparable to necrophilial marriage becasue two living things are involved. Etc ad nauseum. There will always be a reason why the next favorite perversion is somehow better than the second next favorite perversion. Let's just sidestep the whole thing and disallow all the perversions (which is what our laws do now)
Q: But I also think that gays can only be more likely to behave in manner more supportive of good social order if society treats them as if it expects such responsible behavior.
A: You are correct. The practice of homosexual sex is not now, nor will it ever be, 'responsible behavior'. Therefore we must expect, and make that expectation known, that the SADs seek a cure to their behavior.
Q: Shutting gays out of "respectable" society and its institutions only encourages rebellious and self-destructive behavior.
A: The problem is that SADs are not shut out of respectable society. You can't fire someone just because they are a pervert. You can't kick them out of rental property you own, you can't socially penalize them in any way. If we did, we'd have less SADs. The practice of homosexual sex is not now, nor will it ever be, "responsible behavior"
Q: Homosexuality is genetic. Therefore it's ok
A: No study has ever found a 'gay' gene. In fact studies using identical twins have shown that there is no genetic component to SAD.
For the sake of argument however, lets assume that a 'gay' gene is found. SAD then falls into the area of other genetic diseases like alcoholism. Just because an alcoholic is genetically predisposed to the disease should society excuse his self-damaging behavior and let him drink as much as he wants? NO! Society demands that he control his behavior and stay sober in order to be a member of respectable society. Drunks aren't welcome in most places including most places of business.
Likewise, if SAD is genetic, the SADs should be shut out of respectable society until they control their behavior. This includes shutting them out of any place where children or respectable people will be. Socially repugnant behavior is socially repugnent whether it is genetic or not.
Q: Can you prove that homosexual behavior is harmful?
A: To individuals? The medical evidence is overwhelming. To society? The only way to "prove" such a thing is to design an experiment where there are two groups of societies where the only distinguishing feature is that one allows homosexual behavior and the other doesn't. Then we have to watch and see what happens. Even if we could do such a thing, wouldn't it be a tad unethical to try?
A more telling question is, can you prove that homosexual behavior is not harmful to a society. Remember we started with a society that didn't permit homosexual behavior and was doing well. In all of history, homosexual behavior has been shunned, or the society did not stand. While that does not constitute proof, it does stand as evidence. We have a standard that works. Now you want to tinker with that standard. The risk to our children is great if homosexual behavior is inded harmful. Why should we let you tinker? Give me something concrete that says you aren't doing any harm before I let you experiment with my society. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Q: Why do you focus on homosexuality? Aren't adultery and fornication just as much an abomination to God? Those are heterosexual sins. Why don't you pay any attention to them?
A: Christians don't just focus on SAD. But in the public policy arena the adulterers and fornicators are happy to keep the issue private. When such issues become public Christians do respond, as when Gary Hart had to withdraw from his presidential bid, or when Bill Clinton was impeached. We even respond to our own, as when Jimmy Swaggart was caught with a prostitute, or when Gary Bauer was meeting with a female junior staffer behind closed doors for long periods of time. Homosexual Activists are the ones who force Christians to address SAD as a public policy issue. If they had been happy to keep their sexual deviancy a private issue, Christians would be happy to be focusing on other things.
But while all sin is sin from the moral perspective, there is a progression from less destructive to more destructive from the social and personal perspective. There is also a progression from soft heart (like King David) to hard heart (like Pharoah). Adultery and fornication are wrong and destructive. And they are more wrong and destructive than greed and gluttony, which are more wrong and destructive than white lies. Picture a slippery slope on the way to a completely hardened heart. Some sins are closer to the soft hart, other sins are closer to the hard heart. The Bible, especially Romans 1, makes it clear that SAD is the final step. Romans tells us that "God gave them up..." God doesn't give up easily. SADs are very nearly completely hardened. Ex-gays will tell you how hard it is to come out of that lifestyle. They will also tell you how important it is.
Sounds to me like your "Projecting".
Shalom.
No, It's not me that wants to be warden of a gay prison camp.
C'mon... think man... think.
Do they own the papers, or are they "allowed" to publish at the discretion of their jailors?
Are they under editorial control of the prisoners... or of the prison?
Can they print what they want without fear of reprisal?
Free speech?
C'mon man.... THINK!
Are they under editorial control of the reporters and journalists... or of the owners and their editors?
Can they print what they want without fear of reprisal?
Free speech?
C'mon man.... THINK!
Your statements lack substance or merit.
You are removed from reality and being nonsensical.
You desire so strongly to have your way that your disregarding common sense realities.
The picture you paint is inaccurate.
Your reasoning is as warped as your cause.
Sadly the results are the same either way.
Profound ignorance.
If so, what is your definition of public? It's a very serious question, because I think someone suggesting punishment for public acts should make a distinction between public and private. Does a private act only occur when the two committing it are present? Could there be others around who consent to/agree with the act in question?
"Public place" means and includes streets and alleys, highways or roads; buildings and grounds used for school purposes; public dance halls and grounds adjacent thereto; soft drink establishments, public buildings, public meeting halls, lobbies, halls and dining rooms of hotels, restaurants, theaters, stores, garages and filling stations, which are open to and are generally used by the public and to which the public is permitted to have unrestricted access; public conveyances of all kinds and character, and the depots and waiting rooms used in conjunction therewith which are open to unrestricted use and access by the public; publicly owned parks and/or playgrounds; and all other places of like or similar nature to which the general public has unrestricted right of access, and which are generally used by the public.
We do not have the right to choose Evil and Homosexuality is Evil.
The fact that some people do not have the ability or most likely the desire to see this fact is no reason to tolerate their actions. We are only free to do the "Right Thing". Potentially we have the freedom to choose to do the wrong thing however, we do so at our own peril. Homosexuality is a perversion of natural law. Homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally and the activity spreads disease both mental and physical. Homosexuality is manifest by a lack of sexual self control and affects both the physical and mental health of its practitioners and others who come into contact with them.
People purposefully engaged in any Evil activity are forced to twist words and thoughts to justify their perverse lifestyle. They eventually lapse into far greater mental distortions which ultimately can lead to graver consequences.
Many homosexuals suffer from other personality disorders which aggravate the situation and have an affect on their perceptions of themselves and others. They are forced to engage in even more convoluted and confusing twists of logic.
Personality Disorders
Some homosexuals also suffer from Borderline Personality Disorders. (BPD) A person with a borderline personality disorder often experiences a repetitive pattern of disorganization and instability in self-image, mood, behavior and close personal relationships. This can cause significant distress or impairment in friendships and work. A person with this disorder can often be bright and intelligent, and appear warm, friendly and competent. They sometimes can maintain this appearance for a number of years until their defense structure crumbles, usually around a stressful situation like the breakup of a romantic relationship or the death of a parent.
Relationships with others are intense but stormy and unstable with marked shifts of feelings and difficulties in maintaining intimate, close connections.
The person may manipulate others and often has difficulty with trusting others. There is also emotional instability with marked and frequent shifts to an empty lonely depression or to irritability and anxiety. There may be unpredictable and impulsive behavior which might include excessive spending, promiscuity, gambling, drug or alcohol abuse, shoplifting, and overeating or physically self-damaging actions such as suicide gestures. (I would include Homosexuality as self damaging)
The person may show inappropriate and intense anger or rage with temper tantrums, constant brooding and resentment, feelings of deprivation, and a loss of control or fear of loss of control over angry feelings. There are also identity disturbances with confusion and uncertainty about self-identity, sexuality, life goals and values, career choices, friendships. There is a deep-seated feeling that one is flawed, defective, damaged or bad in some way, with a tendency to go to extremes in thinking, feeling or behavior. Under extreme stress or in severe cases there can be brief psychotic episodes with loss of contact with reality or bizarre behavior or symptoms. Even in less severe instances, there is often significant disruption of relationships and work performance. The depression which accompanies this disorder can cause much suffering and can lead to serious suicide attempts.
BPD manifests itself in many ways such as Splitting and Counter transference. The primary definition of to split is "to divide sharply or cleanly." The ego mechanism of "splitting" is derived from this definition. In this context, splitting refers to a primitive mechanism of defense characterized by a polarization of good feelings and bad feelings, of love and hate, of attachment and rejection.
A person who suffers these conditions will attempt to “Split” up the “Bad People” by creating derision within the group. Using Counter Transference techniques they try to paint a picture (A caricature) of some in the group which runs counter to the true picture. They often try to transfer their own portrait onto others to make it seem that it is the other person who is “Bad” or at least as maladjusted as themselves. This is intended to draw attention away from their own behaviors. This transference of their own problems to others is intended to divide people who function as a cohesive group thereby drawing them away from their goals and moving them toward the goals of the maladjusted individual.
For a homosexual it is their goal to make everyone look like homosexuals so that they then seem more normal to everyone else. Anyone who is perceived as a threat then is portrayed as being guilty of the same transgressions for which they themselves suffer.
Splitting, archetypally imbedded in a person's psychic structure, acts as a powerful unconscious force to protect against the ego's perception of dangerous anxiety and intense affects. Rather than providing real protection, splitting leads to destructive behavior and turmoil in peoples' lives, and the often confused reactions manifested by those who try to help.
Basically, I see this as another instance where conservatives and liberals are fighting for government control by the same means, only to differing ends. In the end, the only people who profit are government employees. The rest of us must live with diminishing liberties.
My pleasure.
I'm curious to know, do you disagree with what I said? If not, I assume you are willing to accept the fact that your actions will also further your ideological enemies' ability to initiate their plans as well?
I also support the 2nd Amendment, for two reasons. First, I realize every person has a right to defend their life and property should it be attacked. Second, the Constitution clearly provides for this right.
However, the question at hand is exactly the opposite. You would encourage the use of government to achieve your goals, all the while knowing your ideological opposites will also use this tool you've helped create to their ends. You'll win some victories for your cause, they'll win some for theirs, and all the while government will encroach upon us all.
Surely you can see the difference between advocating the right of people to defend themselves and advocating the power of government to meet your goals. Right? I would encourage you to expend as much energy as you like, so long as you keep government out of the equation.
You're welcome. I would hope you've actually taken the time to consider what I've said, as opposed to dismissing it out of hand.
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.