The 'gay' truth: Kevin McCullough on homosexuality dominating American politics

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, May 30, 2003 | Kevin McCullough

[Remedy]

SODOMY : Log Cabin leader tied to Website urged murder of President Reagan, Christian leaders

[tdadams]

I couldn't care less about your cut-n-pastes you whack job. How many times do I have to tell you?

[VOA]

bump

[ArGee]

Your inability to recognize and/or acknowledge the clear distinctions I've demonstrated is disturbing.

Translation - your unwillingness to roll over and agree with me is disturbing.

I see your point but you don't see mine. You think that the belief that individuals should have rights, such as the right to life, is univeral, immutable, and no matter what else we deny or allow we will never lose this.

I think you have very little imagination and very little knowledge of history. You don't know what a monumental change in human thinking it was to put individual human rights in such high regard regardless of the perceived worth of the human being (a concept already shreaded by the abortion laws in this country). That is a particularly Judeo-Christian concept based on the religious conviction that every human being is an image bearer of G-d. For some reason, you think atheists are beholden to this concept despite thousands of years of human history proving it was not so.

I happen to believe that channeling our sexual appetites is as fundamentally important as protecting our rights. But I can't argue that point with you if you're simply going to conclude that anyone who doesn't agree with you is disturbed.

I disagree with you and I can state my reasons. Face it. It's not only allowed, but it is good for the Republic.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

It never fails. Try to have an honest debate about the issues regarding homosexuality and the supporter of "homosexual rights" reverts to name calling.

td, this would be easier if you would allow yourself to carefully think your positions out and describe/define them. If you continue to respond emotionally without getting to the issues being discussed we're going to have to send you to the kiddy corner. Remedy uses cut-n-paste becuase it's inefficient to repeat yourself on thread after thread. I prefer to repeat myself because not everyone will follow a link, but that's not Remedy's style. It doesn't make him a "whack job."

And, as I just said, I can disagree with you without being disturbed.

Shalom.

[LTCJ]

If you haven't been monitoring ArGee's posts of late, I thought I'd send a SHELREP.

An outstanding example of a well reasoned argument, ArGee. My complements.

[af_vet_1981]

But I have noticed that when it comes to the entire issue of homosexuality, increasing numbers of banner conservatives are going soft on truth that has been commonly understood for thousands of years. That truth is this: Homosexuality is behavior that is damaging to individuals, to families and to society.

Yes !

[Remedy]

Voids have more content than your posts.

[ArGee]

Thank you for the kind words, sir. Can I presume you are an O5?

Also, I presume the REP in SHELREP is "report" but what is the SHEL. Shalom.

[EdReform]

So much for independent thinking and admiration of a well reasoned argument...

[tdadams]

Enough with the patronizing platitudes. My position is far more logical and consistent than yours. You can't seem to discern a difference between moral absolutes and your personal strictures.

I called Remedy a whack job because that's exactly what he is. Ostensibly, he posts these cut-n-pastes as some kind of public information service (bless him), but anyone who's been in one debate with him knows his real motive is to provoke shock and disgust.

Finally, since this is breaking down into juvenile petulance, I didn't call you disturbed. I called your position and lack of discernment disturbing. But then, why should I expect you'd read me correctly now when you haven't seemed to comprehend anything I've said so far no matter how clearly I spell it out.

[EdReform]

"An outstanding example of a well reasoned argument, ArGee. My complements."

Ditto!

[ArGee]

Be careful. I don't remember if td and I have crossed pens before, but he attempted to give me the benefit of the doubt that I simply missed his points and I would rather give him the same benefit.

My experience is that most people are much more trusting of the morality of the masses than I am. That doesn't make them stupid, although it makes one of us foolish.

I do object to being called disturbed for disagreeing, and I don't think Remedy deserved to be called a "whack job" for posting hyperlinks. But that was a quick rash which may be explained by a particularly bad morning.

Our old friend madg deserved to go. There are others on this thread fit the "too unreasonable to debate" category. But I am not yet convinced that td is one of them.

You may know him/her better.

Shalom.

[tdadams]

Translation - your unwillingness to roll over and agree with me is disturbing.

My comments speak for themself. I don't need your translation, thanks.

I think you have very little imagination and very little knowledge of history.

Don't patronize me like some little pissant. I'm not some kid in his first year at Berkley.

I disagree with you and I can state my reasons.

Likewise, I disagree with you and I've stated my reasons why. Your reasons are highly subjective, not clearly defined, and amount to "might makes right". I don't think that's very logical.

[ArGee]

My position is far more logical and consistent than yours. You can't seem to discern a difference between moral absolutes and your personal strictures.

We always like our own arguments better than others until we are convinced we are wrong. There are plenty on this thread who think I have done a good job. That doesn't make me right, but it should cause you to take another look.

I try very hard not to have any personal strictures that are not moral absolutes. I don't have any reason for them. Why should I categorically avoid something enjoyable that is not wrong? Likewise, I try very hard to differentiate between things that are bad for me but not wrong in general. Having an alcoholic mother and maternal grandfather suggests to me that it is not worthwhile to tempt fate and drink. But I don't make teetotaling a moral absolute because there is no evidence that it is one.

Get with the program. This is a debate. I clearly pointed out that there was a lot of human history wherein the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was not universally recognized and declared it to come specifically from Judeo-Christian faith. In my opinion, that is a huge stumbling block to your argument of "obvious differences." Either counter my position with an argument of your own or explain how it is not a stumbling block to your argument.

Complaining that I am condescending because you appear to be having a bad morning and started name-calling is not debate.

As for Remedy, I disagree with you on his motives, but that is between you and him. That you degenerate into calling him names is between you and me.

Shalom.

[tdadams]

I suppose you think I should just go along with the flock on FR and that would constitute independent thinking. I suppose you think if I make an argument for making law subjective and outlawing whatever I feel is offensive that that would be well reasoned and not arbitrary.

Unbelievable.

[LTCJ]

Can I presume you are an O5?

Correct, sir. Although, I have been accused by some of sullying the honor of junior company grade officers when they had no other retort.

A SHELREP is a shell report, a key element of a proper counterbattery fire program. Given LiteKeeper's logging for teaching purposes, I wanted to make sure he was aware of your posts - outstanding counterbattery work, indeed.

[tdadams]

There are plenty on this thread who think I have done a good job. That doesn't make me right, but it should cause you to take another look.

I certainly don't expect the majority of FR to agree with me on this topic. Nonetheless, it causes me no equivocation. I've made very reasoned arguments in favor of my postition. You're free to ignore them if you like, as you have. You're free to pretend that I've not made reasoned arguments, but you're only fooling yourself.

You disagree with me, I understand, but for you to say I've not made a reasonable argument is just as subjective and baseless as your understanding of laws and human rights.

I try very hard not to have any personal strictures that are not moral absolutes.

I think the dischordance in our discussion is from having two very different definitions of "moral absolute", which begs the question, how absolute are they? Do you not ask yourself that?

there was a lot of human history wherein the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was not universally recognized

I don't believe human rights were inchoate at the founding of this nation. Our founding documents may have been among the first to statutorily recognize them, but human rights weren't birthed with those documents. Likewise, I don't believe human rights exist only in nations where the government recognizes them, nor are they absent from nations where the government ignores human rights.

[tdadams]

I don't make teetotaling a moral absolute because there is no evidence that it is one.

So, is banning the smoking of marijuana a moral absolute? If so, why isn't drinking alcohol? If not, shouldn't it be legalized, just like alcohol?

I'd really like to know your answers.

[ArGee]

Your reasons are highly subjective, not clearly defined, and amount to "might makes right". I don't think that's very logical.

OK, this has taken more time than I wanted, but I have gone through this thread searching for my posts and have collected my arguments. I'm using numbers so you can refer to them by number. Tell me which ones are subjective. Tell me which ones amount to "might makes right."

1. Biologically, sex is about reproduction. Therefore, homosex is not about sex.
2. Humans can and must control their appetites to be fully human.
3. For someone to say they can't love someone else based on physical appearance indicates an arrested state of development.
4. Our culture is a heterosexual culture. Homosex is maladapted to it.
5. Homosex is immoral. No religious code recognizes it as moral or even neutral.
6. All laws are based on a moral position.
7. Normalizing homosex is a change from what was without any contributing positive justification.
8. No society which has accepted homosex has survived. While this does not prove acceptance of homosex as the cause, it is not an endorsement of acceptance of homosex.
9. Black slavery was wrong because it presumed blacks themselves were sub-human. Once this was discovered to be untrue there was pursuasive reason to abolish it. There has been no claim that homosexuals are sub-human and there has been no pursuasive reason to normalize it.
10. The APA removed homosex from its DSM because it decided that maladaptations that the person was willing to live with were not to be considered diseases. The appropriate response to homosexuals moved from curing them to helping them get used to being homosexuals.
11. The moral laws on sexuality are as universal as the laws on the right to life and are based on heterosexual marriage being the proper expression of sexuality.
12. The moral law is a fundamental law of the universe, like physical laws. It may be difficult to determine, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
13. Individuals are impacted by the moral claims of their culture.
14. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have not always been recognized. They were first posited by the Judeo-Christian faith based on the fact that man is an image-bearer of G-d.

    Shalom.