Part I: The Homosexual Agenda: Why Are Most Conservatives So Lily-Livered And Weak?

Toogood Reports ^ | July 30 , 2002 | E. S. Lee

[ELS]

Where are the MA FReepers?

[OWK]

Why do you believe that the state has the moral authority to dictate the terms and conditions of a contract to which it is not a party?

And the moral authority to demand that you first seeks it's approval?

[EdReform]

"A group of homosexuals and lesbians approached and began threatening her and the others with her, tormenting them with anti-religious slurs. The attempts met with no response. One of the activists then centered on her and tried more aggressively to get her to respond, verbally abusing her until she was in tears. When she said nothing, the activist spat, “I hope your children choke and die in front of you!”

That's so gay. So intolerant.

[EdReform]

Ping

[Salman]

Homosexual Communist Media

Communists out of power will use anyone, but no Communist regime in power has ever had the slightest tolerance for homosexuals. Indeed the Fidel Castro regime is probably the least "gat friendly" regime outside the Muslim world.

Communist regimes demand loyalty above loyalty to family, but in their own warped way are very family oriented. The Stalin regime even gave out medals to women who had many children.

Order of Mother Heroine (From a website for collectors)

[Bryan24]

Who are you to question what people believe? If everyone believed as you, we would have total anarchy. If you don't want total anarchy, then SOME form of moral authority and judgement must be used.

[OWK]

Who are you to question what people believe?

I am a free man, endowed with inalienable rights. And as for what you believe, I could care less. It isn't your "beliefs" I question. You are free to do as you damned well please, provided you don't violate the rights of others in the process.

But when you suggest that your "beliefs" should be enforced by the state at the point of a gun, when no one's rights have been violated.. you cross the line from advocating your beliefs... to outright evil under the guise of morality.

If you don't want total anarchy, then SOME form of moral authority and judgement must be used.

The "form of judgement" to be used, is called rights.

The only morally legitimate purpose for state is the defense of individual rights.

Two consenting adult individuals engaging in a contract (of marriage or anything else) are not subject to state establishing terms and conditions, nor are they subject to state's demands of approval... in a society which values rights.

[galt-jw]

most Christians are spineless too...they wont stand up to evil...."turn the other cheek"

oh yeah, how bout "sell your cloak and buy a sword"

oooo, we dont like to quote that one, it means we have to work.

[1_Of_We]

"Why do you believe that the state has the moral authority to dictate the terms and conditions of a contract to which it is not a party?"

#1. The state (morally) has LEGAL authority.
#2. The state IS a party to the marriage contract.

"I once was blind, but now I see..."

[SkyPilot]

You are dealing with a group of people who are pathologically hateful and full of rage. There is one unforgivable thing in their minds: to remind them that homosexuality is a perversion.

God has a way of reminding all of us that certain things are wrong. I believe our conscious is a reflection of "God writing His law on our hearts."

But for those who are so far gone, for those with a "seared conscious"--the ultimate villian in their eyes is someone who reminds them that there is right vs. wrong.

[OWK]

#1. The state (morally) has LEGAL authority.

Quite obviously the state has the legal authority. That can be understood by anyone with the smarts of a doorknob. The question, is whether or not the state SHOULD have the legal authority (i.e., does the state have the moral authority)

The Third Reich granted itself the legal authority to roast Jews to death. It did so however, without the moral authority.

See the distinction?

#2. The state IS a party to the marriage contract.

My marriage was a convenant between myself and my wife. I did not marry the state. Perhaps you did... but I did not.

[LiteKeeper]

Bump for later read

[scripter]

Bump

[1_Of_We]

1. OK, now I'm curious: What shall you say is the SOURCE of 'moral authority'?

2. The state is a party to all LEGAL contracts. Mine is a legal marriage... I don't know about yours.

[OWK]

1. OK, now I'm curious: What shall you say is the SOURCE of 'moral authority'?

Objective Reality.

2. The state is a party to all LEGAL contracts.

Again, you're the master of the obvious. The question isn't whether the state inserts itself into contracts, but whether it SHOULD. (i.e., whether it does so morally)

Mine is a legal marriage... I don't know about yours.

Would your marriage be any less real before God, if you failed to seek the permission of the state first?

Again I ask... Who is the state to demand that you seek it's permission before entering into the contract of marriage?

Is this the way free men behave?

[Khepera]

Is this not a hate crime? It would be if it was directed towards the homosexual and not the christian. When they spat that would be assult with a deadly weapon. lets get some equality going here.

[1_Of_We]

Being well aware of 'how free men behave' I observe that they are many times rather flippant when deciding what 'facts' will be included in the determination of 'objective reality'. Therefore 'objective reality' would not seem to be a very reliable source of morality. In fact I believe using that source would put us in the pre-biblical era.

"Why do you believe that the state has the moral authority to dictate the terms and conditions of a contract to which it is not a party?"

That would depend on which state we are considering.

[EdReform]

Homosexuality is a hate crime against creation

[Khepera]

You got that right.