Posted on 02/22/2010 9:06:23 PM PST by DesertRenegade
Never said we should sit on the side.
I said government should sit on the side.
It should stop doing what it is doing and certainly not do anything else.
Thanks for the rules on posting etiquette. I usually use < > for quotes, as that is what i often saw being used in forum when i began posting on forums, and its easier. But will change if that is what is right.
Why are you butting in to the King?
No, but which group do you suppose has the highest incidence of aids? They're called QUEERS for a reason!
The final step is that any gay who agrees with that IS a conservative.
You don’t have to like him/her.
They are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
* They believe in the "pure" democracy of Marxism in which the majority rules; but every time their twisted agenda is put to a vote, they lose.
* They believe in breaking every man-made as well as moral law, but then run whining to the courts to establish their Alternate Regime legally.
* They want to be considered perfect material for parenthood; but they hold vilely obscene street fairs and gross out anyone on the fence who might otherwise be sympathetic.
Something's gotta give.
I think it’s gathering like a huge ripe boil.
but it’s not on the side now is it so either we get it on our side or not to stop them or they stop us.
I don’t want to see like many conservatives fathers from marrying their daughters or the FLDS church getting their agenda
HUH
I’m sorry but you are a liar. You support Lawrence vs Texas and yet you say you want government to stay out. Government by its very nature has to be one on side or the other. Only with anarchy will there be “nothing” from the government.
I'll bump that!
Richard Milhous Nixon?
You are lying. On one hand you say “no government intervention” and OTOH you want basically a landry list of exactly what the homosexual agenda wants.
Watered down a bit so it doesn’t look so extreme.
If you want a completely neutral government in this matter then pure anarchy is the only way.
GOProud has listed its goals and they are far, far from conservative. Maybe someone has reposted them on this thread. If not I’ll try to later.
Running out the door.
All well and good, but the ball is now so far in the other court via legislation and judicial decision, how do you suggest getting back to a so-called gov-neutral status? And ideas?
GOProud’s stated agenda is not conservative one single bit. I will post it later if no one else does. They are homo-nazi Big Gov all the way. NOT conservative despite trying to use a few nice sounding phrases.
The radical definition of liberty is "anything goes"; whereas traditional conservatives are "oriented" towards the long-term, i.e. their children and children's children.
While adoption and semi-parenting are possible for gays, assisted reproduction is at least 50% diluted from a true, bloodline connection to the fate of one's progeny that the naturally reproductive citizen experiences. Natural reproduction is a powerful social forcem-- a force of "Nature and Nature's God" -- more powerful than any sexual fetish posing as an "orientation."
No, you don't. When you exclude people who are not qualified from performing certain tasks, you preserve the quality of those tasks and of those who perform them.
Equal rights does not mean that everyone is equally qualified for every task or role in society. Would you want to go to a doctor who was only a high school graduate, but sued to be granted a medical license because she "felt excluded" from being a surgeon?
There. Fixed it.
|
In answering these i will say the State has the right to make such laws, though i would rather see mercy and repentance. I also make some statement below based upon your statements that, “I believe anybody can exchange promises anytime they want to, with or without a ceremony and without interference”, based on your principal of gov, non-inteferance, and that “sodomy laws were improper and that Lawrence v. Texas was correctly decided,” and that ““I don't want the government to do a damn thing for or against homosexuals.” 1. Do you think that homosexuals should be prosecuted? Insofar as the State has a legit interest in public health, and male homosexuality is abundantly evidenced to typically result in a greatly increased incidence of infectious diseases and premature death, then gay bars and gay bath houses should be shutdown, and prosecuted for failing to do so, and participants punished, as those who engage in prostitution. However, to be consistent, you must favor prostitution being legalized. 2. Do you think homosexuals should be imprisoned? If need be, as with any criminal act, as in violation re. the above, and in addition, for any known promotion of this practice, as being morally wrong, just as polygamy is. However, to be consistent, you must favor polygamy as well as bestiality? 3. Do you think homosexuals should be castrated? No. 4. Do you think homosexuals should be shot? No one should unless the State can provide 2 or 3 eyewitnesses, or the certified equivalent, and false witness incur that same penalty their false witness did. While again, i would rather see mercy and repentance, i uphold the right of the State to make practicing homosexuality a capital crime, esp., due to its inherent immorality, esp., as i a recent case, if they knowingly passed on AIDS. 5. How much government do you want? Far less than we do, without anarchy, but if souls are not sufficiently controlled from within they must be controlled from without. It is the job of the evang. church to affect the former, while the State must do the latter. Thus a weak church results in a growth of government. And if the basic morality of the gov. is perverse, and itself in not much governed by Biblical morality, the people of that nation shall suffer. Your error is that the gov. should not make laws regulating moral such behavior, but while it is indeed dangerous when it does, if its moral view, as in often the case in Communism, however no govs can escape making such, as all legal and educational system rely on moral beliefs, and though it may not mandate formal adherence to a sect, it will favor one over the other. In a Democracy, the people decide what that “civil religion” shall be, and America has been more blessed insofar as it held to Biblical morality, and the gov. was right in recognizing that, even if it need not enforce theological views. And as prohibiting polygamy and bestiality and homosexually is only beneficial to society, the prohibition is justified, as should be recreational drug use, when known, without snooping in peoples houses, unless promoting it. Robert Winthrop (May 12, 1809 – November 16, 1894), and Speaker of the House from 1838 to 1840, and later president of the Massachusetts Bible Society, explained that, “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or the bayonet. Even the Unitarian “Father of the Common School,” Horace Mann (May 4, 1796 — August 02, 1859), who became Massachusetts Secretary of Education in 1837, not only understood the impossibility of separating education from religious moral beliefs, but held that it was lawful to teach the truths of the general Christian faith, asserting that the “laws of Massachusetts required the teaching of the basic moral doctrines of Christianity.” Mann, who supported prohibition of alcohol and intemperance, slavery and lotteries, (http://www.famousamericans.net/horacemann) dreaded “intellectual eminence when separated from virtue”, that education, if taught without moral responsibilities, would produce more evil than it inherited. (William Jeynes, “American educational history: school, society, and the common good,” p. 149, 150) Sir William Blackstone, whose authored extensive Commentaries on the Laws of England from 1765-1769 became the preeminent legal authority that were admired and used by America’s Founding Fathers, stated: “ IV. WHAT has been here observed..., which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast.... But it is an offence of so dark a nature...that the accusation should be clearly made out.... Massachusetts General Laws, section 272 orders,
|
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.