Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Conservativism

We aren’t at an impasse. Homosexual acts are morally wrong.

No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, desire is not enough to make such a wide-reaching social change as legal encouragement of homosexuality.

It’s incumbent on the ethical, responsible citizen to attempt changes in the law by reasonable, rational means and to at least attempt to give evidence that the change is for the better.

The 3 men who brought us the Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas case don’t add any evidence that their activities were either private or at all a change for the better for our society.

The “neighbor” who made the false complaint was Robert Royce Eubanks. He was actually Garner’s roommate at the time and was sexually involved with both Lawrence and Garner. He was later murdered in Garner’s apartment, before the case was even heard in the SCOTUS. Garner died a couple of years ago, of complications of an infection - according to FR posts, after losing his legs due to meningitis.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/937725/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1123988/posts


39 posted on 12/13/2009 10:49:34 PM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: hocndoc
You refuse to listen and this circular debate is growing stale. My contribution to it will end with this post.

“We aren’t at an impasse. Homosexual acts are morally wrong.”


I do not necessarily disagree with your characterization of homosexuality, but you either (1) don't understand what an impasse is or (2) have repeatedly missed my point. That's not what the impasse is about. Come on, I expect more of a learned person. (Of course, I'm assuming your intellectual honesty here.)

“No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, desire is not enough to make such a wide-reaching social change as legal encouragement of homosexuality.”


That's not at all what this is about. If anything, this is about the merits of official government discouragement of homosexuality. I've said this many times. And I'm not even sure what specifically you are referring to. (Gay marriage? Repeal of anti-sodomy laws?) Regardless, desire has nothing to do with anything here. The major issues are the constitution and the government's role in taking a stance on private behavior.

“It’s incumbent on the ethical, responsible citizen to attempt changes in the law by reasonable, rational means and to at least attempt to give evidence that the change is for the better.”


As a normative statement, I agree entirely. However, there is actually no such burden, at least for bringing suit. Even if there was, I trust you're objective enough to see that reasonable arguments can always be made on the other side. Not that I understand this strawman ‘other side’ you're concocting again.

“The 3 men who brought us the Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas case don’t add any evidence that their activities were either private or at all a change for the better for our society.

The “neighbor” who made the false complaint was Robert Royce Eubanks. He was actually Garner’s roommate at the time and was sexually involved with both Lawrence and Garner. He was later murdered in Garner’s apartment, before the case was even heard in the SCOTUS. Garner died a couple of years ago, of complications of an infection - according to FR posts, after losing his legs due to meningitis.”


This is good to know, thank you. Still, it's entirely disingenuous to say the motive was expressly to overturn the law. It wasn't; calling the cops was out of jealousy. And that wasn't the point of my last post anyway. The point was that you labor under the painful misconception that challenging laws means you despise them and the law-making process. That's demonstrably not always true.

What you don't seem to understand is that not many do not the same morals and value set as you, and that—great as your values are—the founders intended the government to be a secular institution. Your viewpoint, as typified in your previous post, is a rather simplified “I'm right. They're wrong.” But, it is completely colored by religion and lacks an appreciation of Jeffersonian and Lockian ideals. Plain and simple, this debate does not belong in the government.

41 posted on 12/14/2009 8:19:33 AM PST by Conservativism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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