Posted on 05/17/2004 4:20:41 PM PDT by Gelato
I hate religion.
But I love Christianity, which seeks those who are lost, and provides them with the solution to their dilemma.
Science seeks those that disagree.
True science simply seeks the truth, and to discover how that truth functions in reality.
That is why Christians have always excelled at it.
There should be little doubt which faction has produced the most intellectual, cultural, and philosophical progress over the course of our history.
No doubt about it. Christians.
Your personal morality sounds exemplary.
Why you are arguing in favor of the radical homosexual agenda, I have no idea.
I simply pointed you were arging it the way leftists do, which is true.
ping
Do you plan to answer my questions in #112?
In addition, do you plan to listen to the speech this thread is about?
The old rule around here is that when you are reduced to parsing grammar, you have probably lost the argument.
Have at my typos next. I make a few now and then.
Gotta go.
Keep up the good fight.
Because I admire Jesus for what he did as a human -- not as because he was divine or supernatural -- which was to argue (as you claim) like the leftists do -- against the extreme Right of the time -- Judaism, or more importantly, the Roman Empire. Put yourself in the shoes of the the "Right" then, some 2000 years ago. Would your convictions not argue against Jesus for associating with "tax collectors", "lepers", "untouchables", "poor", "blind", and other so call evils of the time? I don't expect you to see any analogy here, but consider the following:
From: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S. 52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant. 24.5% are Roman Catholic.
If you don't watch it, and I warned you all before, we Christians will soon be outnumbered in the USA. If you think the "homosexual agenda" is radical, keep a sliver of doubt that maybe it is unconstitutional to say so legislatively. And lest you wish to let your opponents to use your weapons against you but in greater numbers later, you'd best not use them now.
Every law 'legislates morality'. To argue otherwise leads you into pure, unadulterated nonsense. That's all I have to say tonight to your attempted line of argument: "NONSENSE."
Fine with me. In effect, your emotional reply makes my point.
I favor legislating only Constitutional law, and as little of that as we can.
No you don't. You claim to. But because you don't have the same mindset as the founders, you don't even understand what that means.
Again, you're out of control.
I'll put my six year record here of defending our constitution, as written, against your vision of it, -- anyday.
Take a look at the thousands of laws passed by the founding generation, and then come back and tell me that those laws, which regulated human behavior in many ways much more strictly than is currently the case, are somehow 'unconstitutional'.
Many of them were. There was much confusion in the early days about our BOR's and some states thought they could violate them. -- The 14th amendments logic on the subject is gradually becoming accepted. Bout time.
"The 'majority rule' thing is incomprehensible." Of course, your reading comprehension skills are at least great enough to know that I meant your words were incomprehensible, not Dr. Keyes' statements. His are clear, yours are not.
My words were clear. I wrote:
That's why I hate to see Keyes thump on his "right of the people!" bit.. He claims there is:
"the right of the people to decide in the law what is right, the right of their representatives to decide in the law what is right!"
-- Which to my mind is a thinly disguised call for majority rule, -- regardless of our constitutional safeguards.
Obviously you don't understand that the people are sovereign in our system, and that the ultimate responsibility and power rests with them,
Tempered by our Constitutions restraints.
notwithstanding the attempts by the left to destroy that concept.
Some on the 'right' are also busy with ignoring that concept, they're generally known as Rinos.
"Alan is a republican, in the truest sense of the word."
I see a bit to much of the rabblerousing fundamentalist in him for that. Like many overzealous men he thinks his vision of what is 'morally right' should be law.
Which of course once again points up the source of your constant confusion.
Once again, unable to refute my opinions, you claim ~I'm~ the one confused.
Pitiful display, EV.
I wish you were my neighbor. I live in a very liberal neighborhood.
I don't discriminate against them. They don't bother me either. All I'm claiming is that the law, as it exists today, does not discriminate against them either, according to our constitution. Our law makes many statements about the number of people, which is not unconstitutional. The fact that we are proposing that Big Brother legislates a positive law (i.e. one that does not begin with something like "Congress shall not...") that uses terms like "homosexual" in it, or "heterosexual", or "man", or "woman", or anything of the gender sort, is not a good idea. Our constitution has no business making laws that favor sexual practices. We've had this debate before - decades ago - concerning race. They just didn't have the Internet back then, which is why it took a civil war and 100 years to resolve.
Polygamy is simply another lifestyle, like homosexuality.
"Lifestyle" is irrelevant in our system of laws -- and it should be. This cannot be used as an argument for law. Anyone can claim that murdering people and taking their money is a lifestyle. Certainly the Mafia would agree. This cannot be included in the argument.
Good night. Talk to you soon.
read or listen later
The point is not about monogamy, it is about sucking the life out of the foundation of civilization to satisfy their own selfish desires.
Raise your right hand, look in the mirror (or in your case Moon the mirror) say "I DO"
Sorry Mathlete, Wrong Poster, meant to send that elswhere.
I'll continue to play "devil's advocate": You’re saying that some groups can be married, but not others. Even though you define marriage as a right, you're singling out polygamists and incestuous couples as the ONLY ones you think shouldn't partake of this human right. By definition, that is discrimination.
If marriage is a right belonging to all persons, shouldn't everyone be allowed to marry whomever they please?
"Lifestyle" is irrelevant in our system of laws -- and it should be. This cannot be used as an argument for law. Anyone can claim that murdering people and taking their money is a lifestyle. Certainly the Mafia would agree. This cannot be included in the argument.
True, but a red herring. We're talking about denying a human right to somebody simply because of their lifestyle. That is what your argument does: you first say marriage is a right like property, and then you allow only homosexuals and heterosexuals to use this right, and you exclude polygamists, related people, and bisexuals, based solely upon your disapproval of their lifestyle.
Apply that to race. Blacks and whites are OK, but Asians, Latinos, and Jews are not? There’s no rational basis for that view. If you buy the argument that marriage is a right, you have to apply it equally.
In truth, sexuality is not like race, and marriage is not like a right to property. Marriage is defined by common law, dictionaries, and human understanding as the union between one man and one woman. That is marriage.
Relationships beyond that do not need the regulation of government. You don’t need the government to formally recognize your friendships and acquaintances, and same-sex couples do not need the government ordaining their lifestyle.
Government has traditionally been involved in recognizing the marriage institution--that is, the union of a man and a woman--because there is a need for it. Why? See the points Dr. Keyes made in his speech. The relationship between a man and a woman is the only one in which children can result, and society has an interest in ensuring that that man and that woman who brought those children into the world are responsible for their care.
Without marriage, society loses its founding unit, the family. Society cannot survive without it. The family predates and created society.
In Massachusetts, the judges decided to dismantle the actual definition of marriage to allow those in the homosexual lifestyle to reap the “benefits” and “privileges” of marriage. They excluded other lifestyles from this, such as polygamy, bisexuality, and incest--for what reason? There is none. Once you say, as they did, that marriage is a thing that must be contorted to fit the gay lifestyle simply because they want its privileges, you must contort it to fit all lifestyles that want its privileges.
Keyes is a great speaker. I'm a little tired of guys who try too hard to force a deep voice they don't have.
later
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
I absolutely agree with you. He's also, IMHO, the most intelligent speaker I can ever recall hearing.
Alan Keyes is a prophet. Period.
We ignore him at our peril.
I took my two kids in to see him speak. Two hours into the program, he hadn't shown up and my 6 and 9 year old daughters were getting very restless. Wish I could have stuck it out to have seen him.
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.