Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DBeers

My position is that the free, lawful choice of adults is none of my business. If that’s hard for you to grasp, there’s not much more to discuss. Lawful freedom is for everyone, not just the folks who please you.


41 posted on 08/19/2010 7:08:13 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: muir_redwoods
My position is that the free, lawful choice of adults is none of my business. If that’s hard for you to grasp, there’s not much more to discuss.

Nice platitudes -meaningless BUT they sound nice -just like social justice sounds nice, economic justice too -whoopee!

The rubber hits the road though when you must define such things like "change you can believe in" or "lawful freedom" or even "lawful choice"... DEVOID of legitimate authority law is meaningless...

I do not grasp the ethereal and vague wisps you suggest graspable...

We specifically talk about homosexual sex here and this sex being a premise for marriage. I talk specifics you talk vague -can you feel this distinction -grasp it?

Homosexual sex may be legal -so what? Legality does not imply it a legitimate premise for a supposed societal value of homosexual marriage no more than the legality of group sex or swinging are legitimate premise for a supposed societal value of group or swinging marriages...

If homosexual couplings were of high value to society -were worthy of recognition and privilege THEN where have these great couplings been hiding?

Why do we not see these highly cherished and much sought after loving committed homosexual couplings until now? Why does society reject that which is so good? Why must this good thing be IMPOSED upon society much like the good of health care reform or any number of other leftist "goods" that society is FORCED to buy.

Legal? Sounds nice... Based upon what authority? --Ah... there's the rub...

We had a revolution against not only a country but the laws as well. The revolution was illegal under the law of man and it was only legitimate under the law and greater authority of God.

The same premise that authored legitimate revolution as well deemed legitimate the authority to establish a government upon and concurrently establish the supreme law of the land under. A nation under God -a government under God -laws under God... Do you see a theme?

Mix that into your platitudes and see what is what. Contrast your concept of legal with the one I suggest and ask yourself which one would have, for instance, been a barrier to the many 'lawful' atrocities committed by Communists, Socialists, and Nazis?

42 posted on 08/19/2010 8:11:37 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson