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

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

[OWK]

Homosexuality is a hate crime against creation

How would you suggest we punish this crime?

Specifically?

[OWK]

That would depend on which state we are considering.

Why?

[Bryan24]

And from WHERE do we derive our rights?

A creator, maybe?

As long as we are allowed to govern ourselves, we have the RIGHT to set our own laws. I would set my laws based on my BELIEFS. Exactly where do you get your core beliefs?

[1_Of_We]

Because some states (read governments) exercise their 'moral authority' better than others.

[Bryan24]

What shall you say is the SOURCE of 'moral authority'?

Objective Reality. Your answer.

Thanks, now I know why to ignore you.

[OWK]

A creator, maybe?

Are your rights any less because they come from your creator?

I wouldn't think so.

Do you think God wants government to make people love him with guns?

[OWK]

Because some states (read governments) exercise their 'moral authority' better than others.

You seem to be confused about the nature of moral authority.

[BARGE]

AIDS; THE Solution.....PATIENCE:THE Method

[Khepera]

Why Are Most Conservatives So Lily-Livered And Weak?

Because if we stood up for ourselves we would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and then some.

[Khepera]

Makes them up as it goes along.

[OWK]

AIDS; THE Solution.....PATIENCE:THE Method

I'm sure that's just what Jesus would have said.

No wait... He said love thy neighbor as thyself.

Maybe he had a different set of secret "hope for the death of homos" teachings, which he only revealed to you.

[OWK]

Because if we stood up for ourselves we would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and then some.

What would you do to the homosexuals, if you wouldn't be subject to prosecution?

If you're not too "Lily-Livered And Weak" to answer?

[Khepera]

First of all I am responding to the following scenario from the article.

(My friend seemed uncharacteristically quiet and when I asked why, told me of an incident that had just happened to a friend of hers as she was walking into the state house. 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!”)

What I would like to see happen in the above situation is for someone to kick that guys ass 6 ways from sunday for being so disgustingly rude. That is justice in a case like that. There is no law I'm aware of that could be used to counter such an attack and an ass whoopin' is what's called for.

In a free country you are allowed for self defense and I believe this would be self defense. I know you will disagree but that's how I see it.

[Alan Chapman]

The state (morally) has LEGAL authority.

Do you believe that what is legal is also moral?

[Houmatt]

Hold it. If two people of the same gender are allowed to marry in the eyes of the law, where do we draw the line? Where do we say one can, but the other cannot?

If we allow same-sex marriage, should we also allow a brother and sister to be married? How about a mother and son? Father and daughter? A woman and a horse? Where does it end?

I will tell you where it ends: Marriage is a union sanctioned by God. It consists of one man and one woman (who are not related). That is the way it is, that is the way it should be.

God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

[yoe]

If you're against homosexual marriages, you are mean spirited and if you are not exactly a booster for gays and lesbians you're really mean spirited and evil to boot. Same sex unions have been with us from time immemorial but never truly accepted until this in-your-face generation of perverts and politically correct nuts overwhelmed this nation. All Bibles state or suggest that this behavior is wrong and a sin. Bibles are not politically correct, those books state truths no matter whom it might hurt.

[OWK]

Hold it. If two people of the same gender are allowed to marry in the eyes of the law, where do we draw the line? Where do we say one can, but the other cannot?

You draw the line at rights. If an action does not infringe upon the rights of another.. the state has no business restraining it.

If we allow same-sex marriage, should we also allow a brother and sister to be married? How about a mother and son? Father and daughter? A woman and a horse? Where does it end?

It ends at rights. If the participants are consenting adults of sound mind, the state has no business restraining their actions if they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

I will tell you where it ends: Marriage is a union sanctioned by God. It consists of one man and one woman (who are not related). That is the way it is, that is the way it should be.

The Mormons said God told them to marry more than one woman. Did you think the force of state guns should be utilized to prevent them from fulfilling their duty to God? God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

God gave you many personal commandments. But he only speaks to your involvement with other men via these words... "Love thy neighbor as thyself"... "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you".

Apparently though, you apply your "that settles it" credo somewhat selectively.

[1_Of_We]

The state (morally) has LEGAL authority.

Do you believe that what is legal is also moral?

My statement was made, and should be taken, within the context of this thread. Further, if the legal agrees with a moral authority then yes, I believe that what is legal is also moral.

[Cobra Scott]

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.

Then why do lezzies get all in an uproar when I suggest that having multiple wives is no one's business but ours?