Posted on 05/14/2006 5:03:17 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
Some writers should stick to prose.
He was actually a much better poet than novelist -- though he was also a decent essayist. That fate put him, Burt Reynolds and John Boorman on the set of Deliverance proves the universe has a sense of humor.
It is well known that a Libertarian is simply a Republican that wants to smoke pot.
You said:
"Early Christians did not believe that first term abortions were the taking of a human life either."
Will you please provide documentation for this claim? Honestly, I don't think that you can because documentation from the Early Church proves otherwise:
"You shall not kill the child by obtaining an abortion. Nor, again, shall you destroy him after he is born." St. Barnabas ("Epistle of St. Barnabas," c. 70-100 A.D.)
"You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one who has been born." "The Didache [The Teaching Of The Twelve Apostles]" (c. 80-140 A.D.)
Yes and Mary should be ashamed then.
No. There are many variations including bisexuals, transsexuals, hermaphrodites, etc. I would imagine that bisexuals would be the midpoint of the condition. Within all of that, I'm sure there are degrees also.
But what about people whose homosexual tendencies are only mild? Will they not be more likely to act on those tendencies if they have social and legal ratification?
The question is, do they have that right? From a legal standpoint, the answer is much clearer than from a social standpoint. As long as they are universally condemned by fundamentalists, the social aspect will remain in question.
What about teens with raging hormones and the usual confusions that accompany those years? Should we use them as guinea pigs to find out how many might be lured into homosexuality by celebrating it in our culture?
When I see something other than anecdotal evidence, I will be better prepared to decide how I feel about it. I simply don't believe that anyone not already so predisposed is suddenly going to choose a life of homosexuality and scorn, young or not.
Homosexuals themselves know that their behavior is unnatural. Historically, homosexuals simply have accepted that their tendencies are abnormal. They discretely seek out "partners" and leave everyone else mostly alone in such a society.
I don't know that to be true. They have previously remained discreet because of laws and social scorn, not necessarily because of any self-judgment about the normality or abnormality of their sexual preferences.
Nothing anywhere in the natural world would indicate that homosexuality is normal.
Two points. As for normal, of course if there's only 5%, then 95% would be the norm, and 5% would be outside of the norm. Quadriplegics fall into that category too. Studies have shown that animals (other than humans) can display homosexual tendencies.
They need constant reinforcement of the belief that their behavior is good and natural, or they'll remember that it isn't.
Again, you are painting a picture perhaps larger than reality here. I've seen no evidence yet suggesting that their legal status and some degree of social acceptance will increase their numbers. Most of the hard corps anti-gay folks are fundamentalist Christians, who truly believe that first of all it's simply a choice, and second should under no circumstances be tolerated.
This is why we get such obvious nonsense as the demand from California's gay caucus that textbooks highlight homosexual inventors or composers, or whatever.
I don't disagree. I have serious problems with that also, especially in lower grade schools. Nor do I accept gay marriage, as I not only believe it should be between one man and one woman, and it opens it up to other variations. In any case, I also believe it is a state issue, and if the people of Massachusetts feel strongly enough about it, they will do something about it within their constitution. I'm confident that the USSC will not uphold any ruling that requires a state to legalize gay marriage.
Uncloseted homosexuality results in a significant loss of liberty and popular sovereignty. It unleashes government forces far in excess of the mild social strictures that kept homosexuality in the closet until recent years.
That same argument was used after abolition in the South. The point is that if two gays or lesbians want to engage in whatever activity floats their boat, then they have the right to privacy to do just that. As for visibility, if it is not illegal to be homosexual, then it can hardly be illegal for them to be visible, whether either of us like it or not.
The writings of St. Augustine, St. Jerome and St. Thomas Aquinas for examples, clearly show that the Catholic Church for about 1200 years did not consider the fetus as a human until "animation". The concept of delayed ensoulement was the Church's position until Pope Pius IX, more for political rather than moral reasons changed that position, making any abortion tantamount to murder, no matter how early the term. That was in the middle of the 18th century, and was done at a time when abortions were increasing dramatically and the use of various birth controls were increasing.
The Church almost always considered it a sin, because it considered birth control a sin. Both were considered stopping a process God started. But murder it was not.
Doubt if you will. The Writer of the Bible is omniscient.
What about the editors and translators?
That depends on their intentions and motivations.
Well, we've debated the issue of whether or not acceptance of homosexuality will increase the number of young people lured into such behavior. I believe it will, while you don't. I appreciate your willingness to debate in an intelligent and polite manner.
I will elaborate on one point, though. The latter part of my previous post dealt with more than whether or not acceptance of homosexuality will lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals. It also increases their ideological aggression and leads to a general loss of liberty.
There seems to be an attitude among some libertarian types that if we let homosexuality out of the closet, we're expanding human liberty. The argument is that laws against sodomy and negative social attitudes "oppress" homosexuals and deny them certain liberties that heterosexuals enjoy. To an extent, this is true.
But before jumping on the bandwagon for letting homosexuality out of the closet, we should ask ourselves a couple of questions.
First, is homosexuality something we wish to be displayed in public? Nudists are "oppressed" in the sense that they can't go nude anywhere they wish. But so far we haven't deemed public nudity to be acceptable so as not to restrain nudist impulses.
Likewise, is homosexuality really something we want to see? Do we want to see two men kissing in a restaurant? Do we want our children to see it? Is the sexual release we would give homosexuals (or nudists, or people who like sex with animals, etc.) a freedom of such worth that it overrides public taste and our right to protect our children?
Is "liberating" a perverted sex fetish worth more than thousands of years of civilized tradition? Is it worth more than our childrens' innocence? If so, why limit it to homosexuality? Should adultery also be given public endorsement? Nudity? Sex with animals?
Second, I would add that uncloseted homosexuality leads to a net loss of freedom in society for the very reasons I outlined in the prior post. If you let homosexuality out of the closet, it doesn't just stop there. Uncloseted homosexuals will demand many restrictions on the rest of us so that they won't feel badly about themselves. They know that their tendencies aren't normal, and they need constant reinforcement to maintain the illusion that it is.
So a society with uncloseted homosexuality will soon find that property rights have been further restricted by the passage of laws banning "discrimination" against homosexuals. What if a Christian doesn't want to rent an apartment to a gay couple? Too bad. His religious freedom and property rights must bow to homosexuality.
Speech codes. Hate crime laws. Private clubs and organizations banned from public forums unless they change their sincerely held beliefs to accommodate homosexuality. People speak now in guarded tones lest they be accused of "homophobia" and sent to diversity training.
When Judge Pryor was up for confirmation, Democrats grilled him incessantly over a report that he cancelled taking his kids to DisneyWorld when he found out it was "Gay Day" there. They found it "shocking" that Pryor didn't want to expose his small children to men dressed as women, waving plastic penises around, and carrying whips. Eventually, mere membership in a church that doesn't sanction homosexuality will be a disqualifying factor for appointed office.
Because homosexuals themselves know their behavior is unnatural (how could it be otherwise?), they need constant reinforcement and their sexuality becomes the focal point of their lives. So we have gay film festivals where gay film directors rant on and on about how their "gayness" permeates every fiber of their being. We teach kids about gay inventors, gay composers, gay athletes. Uncloseted homosexuality must bathe in homosexuality 24/7, and it must restrict the freedom of anyone who holds a differing position.
I agree.
The main issue isn't how gay marriage will affect gays, it's how it will affect everyone else over the long haul.
The only thing working in our favor is the fact that as tolerant as many people try to be of gays, there's a visceral disgust that heterosexuals feel towards the idea of two men having sex with each other. This is homophobia at it's most basic level. It's normal, and it will never go away.
The bottom line is that many people oppose gay marriage, but can't articulate why they do. It just feels "wrong", because it is.
"Likewise, is homosexuality really something we want to see? Do we want to see two men kissing in a restaurant? Do we want our children to see it?"
I don't want to see that from heterosexuals in public, either, but everyone does their "own thing" these days.
"The bottom line is that many people oppose gay marriage, but can't articulate why they do. It just feels "wrong"...
That's why people were against blacks marrying whites, too. They thought it felt wrong, and WAS wrong. I'm sure some people still do.
Also, it makes no difference from a Biblical standpoint if homosexual tendencies are genetic or not. Homosexual acts are still forbidden. All of us have sinful desires of some sort. For all we know, many of them could be genetic impulses. But it's our obligation as Christians to not act on those impulses.
It's the responsibility of someone with homosexual desires not to act on them, just as it's the responsibility of a heterosexual married man tempted to cheat on his wife not to do so. Or not to steal something we desire, but can't afford. Or not to take cocaine even though we're under temptation to do it.
Christ, after all, was tempted. But He didn't succumb to the temptations.
It's very easy not to sin when you have no desire to sin. There are sins which tempt one person which might not tempt another. But we all have our weak points. It's our Christian responsibility not to give in to those weaknesses.
Well, they now have a law in Britain forcing pub and restaurant owners to allow homosexual kissing in their establishments. Isn't it funny how we all have to answer to the law now to accommodate the fetish of homosexuality? We lose property rights and religious liberty so that gays are free to kiss in front of our kids. Doesn't sound like an even trade. Sounds like a net societal loss of freedom.
Race is to gender what apples are to oranges. It's why we didn't sexually integrate the restrooms when we racially integrated them.
Thanks. That's what separates conservatives from DU types. Anyway, my position is that I don't know, as I've not seen any evidence yet to conclude one way or another. I am relatively sure that homosexuality is not a choice, though homosexual behavior is, just as is heterosexual behavior. So what I am not sure about is whether any young people not already predisposed to homosexuality will become "victims" by seeing it out in the open.
First, is homosexuality something we wish to be displayed in public? Nudists are "oppressed" in the sense that they can't go nude anywhere they wish. But so far we haven't deemed public nudity to be acceptable so as not to restrain nudist impulses.
I don't personally want to see 2 males kissing each other, simply because I am too old now to change some basic values and biases. But then, if I have children present, I don't want to see a couple of heterosexuals kissing and making out in public either. Some conduct can and should be curtailed, including of course nudity in non approved areas. But still, most people do not approve of the nudist lifestyle or philosophy. Children who are part of nudist families seem to grow up alright though. So I'm not sure of nudists except that they do not belong on the street.
Is the sexual release we would give homosexuals (or nudists, or people who like sex with animals, etc.) a freedom of such worth that it overrides public taste and our right to protect our children?
Let's keep it on the homosexual theme. I don't agree that permitting homosexuals to say, hold hands in public, somehow opens it up to bestiality or nudism or whatever. But I'm relatively sure that if homosexuals are legal as such, keeping them from doing whatever heterosexuals do in public is likely to fail the 14th Amendment.
Is "liberating" a perverted sex fetish worth more than thousands of years of civilized tradition? Is it worth more than our childrens' innocence?
Given what is available in the movies today, on television and in magazines, the Internet, etc, I'd say the innocence is dead. The point is, would you rather have your children see two homosexuals holding hands, or play a game of Grand Theft Auto? I think kids are daily bombarded with many things far worse than the former.
Nudists are "oppressed" in the sense that they can't go nude anywhere they wish. But so far we haven't deemed public nudity to be acceptable so as not to restrain nudist impulses.
Again, be careful of the red herring. Nudism is pure and simple a lifestyle choice. No one is born to be a nudist, nor will any nudist tell you they are. And to the best of my knowledge, nudists would be just as uncomfortable walking down main street naked, as most of us would be seeing them. Finally, nudism in most places is against the law outside of regulated and licensed areas. Homosexuals on the other hand are legally entitled to go wherever they want.
They know that their tendencies aren't normal, and they need constant reinforcement to maintain the illusion that it is.
You can say the same thing about any person with disabilities too.
So a society with uncloseted homosexuality will soon find that property rights have been further restricted by the passage of laws banning "discrimination" against homosexuals
That's true, but it was equally true with minorities when they began to demand the same rights as others. People still do not want to rent to singles, blacks, Hispanics, families with children, people with disabilities. There was a time when this was not even frowned on. Times have changed, and each change has been rocky at best. The same will be true for homosexuals. Most of us, especially my age, grew up with many such biases, including homosexuals. We are likely not the group to offer up changes to that philosophy.
They found it "shocking" that Pryor didn't want to expose his small children to men dressed as women, waving plastic penises around, and carrying whips
Nor would I. Most homosexuals other than the most militant (sort of like the femenazis) do not want such exposure either.
Eventually, mere membership in a church that doesn't sanction homosexuality will be a disqualifying factor for appointed office.
Perhaps, but the disqualifying factor should be evidence showing a propensity to not treat all legal Americans equally, and not ensuring that the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment applies equally to all. Personal religious beliefs should never play a part either from the questioners or the candidate.
Because homosexuals themselves know their behavior is unnatural (how could it be otherwise?), they need constant reinforcement and their sexuality becomes the focal point of their lives. So we have gay film festivals where gay film directors rant on and on about how their "gayness" permeates every fiber of their being. We teach kids about gay inventors, gay composers, gay athletes. Uncloseted homosexuality must bathe in homosexuality 24/7, and it must restrict the freedom of anyone who holds a differing position.
The vanguard of every "rights" movement from labor unions in the 1800s, to the civil rights movement of the '60s and women's rights movement has been characterized by such outlandish and outrageous conduct and language. After a while in each of the first three cases, it tended to die down as people and ideas merged into the mainstream. Even today, the outrageous behavior of the Hispanics who are demanding amnesty is merely proof they know how to play the age old game of acceptance.
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.