Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 09/16/2012 8:03:17 PM PDT by Thorliveshere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last
To: Thorliveshere

So I guess it is liberty to not warn our gay meighbors that their lifestyle is against God, (and will if supported send them to Hell), rather than (not angrily or hatefully) share the truth of the Gospel?

Jesus is real, and He wants to save both your brother and the practicing homosexuals. He created life, He gets to make the rules.


69 posted on 09/16/2012 11:51:30 PM PDT by JSDude1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Thorliveshere

Your brother is using his ideas of “good” and “bad”, or “right” and “wrong” to argue against what he sees as a “wrong” system. However, in an evolutionary or atheistic worldview there can be no real right and wrong since everything is relative and the only consistent truth is survival of the fittest. He has borrowed his beliefs from a Godly worldview in which there is justice and injustice. As C.S. Lewis said... (paraphrased) How can one argue against a crooked line when he has no notion of a straight one?


75 posted on 09/17/2012 5:32:22 AM PDT by Drawsing (The fool shows his annoyance at once. The prudent man overlooks an insult. (Proverbs 12:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Thorliveshere

I don’t know how your discussions with him go, but he’s right about worrying about the joining of Big Government with Big Religion. Theocratic regimes are among the worst hellholes to live in. Right up there with them are Cult of Personality dictatorships where Big Government IS the religion.


79 posted on 09/17/2012 6:03:10 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Thorliveshere
Your brother sounds more like a very big hardcore “L” Libertarian in that he sees this as a matter of government enforcing a “religious” POV. To some degree, he may be right even as he is also wrong.

As a Conservative who is a small “l” libertarian and also a “non-believer” (I prefer the term “non-believer” for describing myself over Atheist because I see too many that call themselves “Atheist” to be anti-religious freedom and anti-Christian more than anything, and while I may not believe in God or in Gods or in the supernatural, I am not anti-religious, especially not anti-Christian as I see the traditions of the Christian religion as being a big driver in the founding of our nation).

As far as the State’s definition of marriage; while tradition holds and has always held that marriage is between a man and a woman, the State doesn’t have all the same sorts of test for and demands of who can get “married” excepting of course for laws regarding close relatives, siblings, 1st and 2nd cousins (although it could be mentioned that 2nd and even 1st cousins did legally marry, even get married in churches in the past, it was not all that uncommon), that the man and woman be of legal age and mentally competent, etc.

But let me try to explain further. The State doesn’t care if two Atheists get married or a man and woman belonging to different religions – say a Hindu and a Zoroastrian, a Catholic and a Jew, a marriage between different “races” etc. The State recognizes those marriages and treats them from a purely legal perspective the very same if it was a civil non-religious ceremony performed by a JOP, a sea captain, a ordained Universalist Unitarian “minister”, just as much as a marriage performed by an ordained minister or Priest or Rabbi in a very traditional church or synagogue. However a church may choose not to recognize such “marriages” in terms of how their religion defines marriage. The State, unlike many churches, also doesn’t require prior religious instruction or a promise to raise children in any particular faith prior to marriage, nor does the State, unlike many religions, require that a married man and woman even have children. The State recognizes divorce whereas some religions do not or only under rare circumstances.

So where does this lead me as a Conservative, small “l” libertarian and a “non-believer” in terms of “Gay” marriage?

Some good perspectives and points from a secular perspective can be found here:

A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

{1} Anti-Minoritarianism. The majority has rights, too.

{3} There really is a slippery slope here. Once marriage has been redefined to include homosexual pairings, what grounds will there be to oppose further redefinition — to encompass people who want to marry their ponies, their sisters, or their soccer team? Are all private contractual relations for cohabitation to be rendered equal, or are some to be privileged over others, as has been customary in all times and places? If the latter, what is wrong with heterosexual pairing as the privileged status, sanctified as it is by custom and popular feeling?

{5} Human nature exists, and has fixed characteristics. We are not infinitely malleable. Human society and human institutions need to ”fit” human nature, or at least not go too brazenly against the grain of it. Homophobia seems to be a rooted condition in us. It has been present always and everywhere, if only minimally (and unfairly — there has always been a double standard here) in disdain for “the man who plays the part of a woman.” There has never, anywhere, at any level of civilization, been a society that approved egalitarian (i.e. same age, same status) homosexual bonding. This tells us something about human nature — something it might be wisest (and would certainly be conservative-est) to leave alone.

{6} There is a thinness in the arguments for gay marriage that leaves one thinking the proponents are not so much for something as against something. How many times have you heard that gay marriage is necessary so that gay people will not be hindered in visiting a hospitalized partner? But if hospitals have such rules — a thing I find hard to believe in this PC-whipped age — the rules can be changed, by legislation if necessary. What need to overturn a millennial institution for such trivial ends?

As far as “rights”; gay couples can, just like heterosexual couples who choose to not live in a “traditional” relationship such as a traditional marriage, that currently being defined as that between a man and a woman, can still live together, can purchase and own joint property, can hold joint checking accounts, can will property to each other, can enter into business and other legal contracts together or with each other such as naming their “partner” in a living will or naming that person their medical guardian in case of illness. In other words, they are granted the very same rights and are protected by the very same laws that I, as an unmarried heterosexual woman have.

As a childless, unmarried, heterosexual middle aged woman, I have named my niece and nephew in my will, they are my emergency contacts, the beneficiaries of my life insurance policies and 401k should I die, I’ve named my niece in my living will and should I become terminally ill and reach the point of no longer mentally competent to make decisions for myself, will name my niece as my legal and medical guardian. I can do all these things without “marrying” my niece or nephew. And absent my niece and nephew, I could have also named my heterosexual, Catholic and married best friend. I cannot claim any of them as dependents for tax purposes, nor could I also if I chose to live with a man without the benefit of marriage, claim him.

So in other words, what I would say to your brother is that “gay marriage” in no way grants them any legal rights that they, in reality do not already have. The only reason for recognizing “gay marriage” is to grant “special rights” to a specially recognized and socially non-traditional arrangement that we as a people do not and should not grant to any and all voluntary arrangements (marriages between siblings, minor children, plural marriages) and to force religious institutions to recognize “gay marriage” as being equal to marriage as defined by that religion’s definition.

I would ask your brother, as a Libertarian, if he thinks that this is really “Liberty” or is just the voice of a small minority dictating its will on the majority and if he is OK with marriages between consenting brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers with their children, minor children with each other, young minor children with adults, plural marriages, marriages between humans to cats, dogs, sheep, etc.

As a "free" individual, I can and should be allowed to voluntarily enter into whatever sort of living arrangement I chose to with other consenting adults without government interference, but I also have no expectation that the government or that the will and consensus of a truly free people have to be forced to accept my choices as being "normal" or grant that relationship a status equal to marriage.

80 posted on 09/17/2012 6:31:33 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Thorliveshere
I have argued with Atheists for decades. I've got plenty of arguments, but how well they will work would depend on what sort of Atheist your brother is.

As a practical matter, Atheism is going to eventually become an unworkable choice. As Islamists gain in numbers and acceptance, the choice will not be between Atheism and Religion. The choice is going to be between Christianity and Islam. The Islamists WILL FORCE everyone to accept their religion, and they will kill or imprison the ones who refuse. The only force which can oppose them is Christianity. (As has been the case for the last thousand years.)

Islamists care nothing about Atheist arguments. Their activities are based on what they believe, and facts won't get in their way at all. It is only a Christian culture that will tolerate Atheists. All other cultures in History punished them.

Your brother is going to have to eventually pick a side as a practical matter. That argument ought to appeal to someone who thinks they have a reasoned argument for Atheism.

Also watch this video. It woke me up to the problem. If he doesn't know about this, he needs to. If he needs more information, just look at rape statistics in Europe.

82 posted on 09/17/2012 7:57:59 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Thorliveshere

Atheism is fundamentally illogical. You cannot prove a negative. Therefore, you cannot prove the statement “God does not exist.”

Tell that to your pompous brother.


90 posted on 09/17/2012 11:19:03 AM PDT by matt1234 (As Obama sowed in the Arab Spring, so he is reaping in the Arab Fall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Thorliveshere

I totally and completely agree with everything he said. Don’t see a problem. :) I can’t blame a guy for wanting government out of his life - in EVERY way imaginable.


93 posted on 09/17/2012 3:50:08 PM PDT by America_Right (Remember, Republicans have a lot more in common with Democrats than they do with Tea Partiers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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