Posted on 04/13/2002 12:05:12 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
Freep this Poll:Do you think that right-leaning gays and lesbians can persuade fellow conservatives to support gay rights?
There is no such thing as a “gay” conservative; conservative implies social conservatism not just fiscal. Perhaps “homosexuals” should apply to the Liberaltarian Party; they seem more eager to embrace the philosophies/justifications of immoral relativism.
Except when they don't, and even that's too many for some.
Stanford doesn't hire a coach becuase he's Christian, and that's "discrimination". Notre Dame doesn't hire a coach who's gay, and that's just "exerising their religious rights".
Last I checked, "Christian" and "Conservative" were not interchangeable and even as far as it goes, the only difference between some Christian Conservatives and some gay Conservatives are the "gay issues".
Umm…One is wrongful discrimination against religion, and the other is righteous discrimination against base behavior.
Christian" and "Conservative" were not interchangeable
Never said it, never implied it.
What exactly makes the one "wrongful"?
Never said it, never implied it.
No, what you state is that gays cannot be socially conservative; I don't see a lot of Jews, Buddhists, or Wiccans trying to drive the conservative social-agenda in the name of their religion.
Of course, I probably make the same mistake as you: coloring the position of all with the actions of the few.
Because it violates the Constitutional guarantee of "freedom of religion." Somehow, "freedom of buggery" didn't make the list.
Is this a trick question? Obviouly the “one” in question refers to the Frist Amendment where FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION is PROTECTED. Discrimination against religion is bigotry, discrimination against a behavior is good judgement when the behavior is perverversion.
No, what you state is that gays cannot be socially conservative;
Yes, but not by virtue of religion. The practice of perversion is not a conservative ideal do you think?
I don't see a lot of Jews, Buddhists, or Wiccans trying to drive the conservative social-agenda in the name of their religion.
I’m neither speaking for them or Christians.
Of course, I probably make the same mistake as you: coloring the position of all with the actions of the few.
Probably not.
Ah, you're correct. Except you're not. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, and as demonstrated by the, ahhh, uh, "amendments", subject to change.
Therefore, gays are perfectly within their rights to attempt to change it. Heck, even atheists could get that pesky little first amendment removed if they wanted.
Obviously, your "freedom of religion" isn't much of a right -- given enough people, it could be denied to you.
Discrimination against religion is bigotry, discrimination against a behavior is good judgement when the behavior is perverversion.
o/~ You say 'tomAto, I say tomAHto... o/~
Some think the 90kabillion intepretations of the Bible is a "perversion" while doing what comes natural to them isn't.
Pretty weak position.
Yes, but not by virtue of religion. The practice of perversion is not a conservative ideal do you think?
And the funny thing is, a quick search of Google shows that the "conservative ideals" seem to be A) a belief in the Constitution as a limit on the government's powers to infringe on the individual's rights, B) a belief in the Declaration of Independence, particularly the part about the individual's rights being endowed by the Creator (not "God" or "Christ", and certainly not the Constitution), C) a belief in capitalism, D) a belief in the responsibility of the individual to stand up for the rights of himself and others against threats both internal and external, and E) a belief in working within the Constitution's framework to achieve these ideals.
One has to go to the... erm... religious sites before the "conservative ideals" starts addressing individual behaviors.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
The marriage hopping heteros you mention have more in common with the homo-perverts than they do with us. Attempting to compare us to them is nonsense.
Sure you can, but only if you wish to appear foolish.
There is no question that the high rate of divorce is far more deleterious to the culture than the small percentage of adults who are gay.
Actually, if you'll look at my original response and come to understand what it is saying, you'll come to realize they these are both social pathologies that do not deserve our support, but our derision. I'm all for banning "no-fault" divorce immediately, particularly when children are involved.
But it's much easier to vent your rage at "gay" people, since they're different.
No, it's because they are the more vocal and illicit a more visible response. When they go back to keeping their private lives private, I'll gladly keep quiet about them. (And please don't try the tired tactic of suggesting that normal folks would have to conceal evidence of their heterosexuality, such as hiding wedding bands and pictures of children---it's just so banal.)
Actually I find this comforting, that FR has made a name for itself among some gay community somewhere, for attacking the agenda they clearly have, and EXPOSING the LIE that "homosexuality isn't a choice, it's a predisposition"!
So thanks! Good to see FR is having an effect ONCE again, on the liberal lies in America!
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.