:-)
Posted on 08/19/2010 10:43:44 PM PDT by StrangeFeathers
The root word of "conservative" is "conserve"...conservatives which to prevent the sweeping, wholesale uprooting of common historical American values.
Many of which are rooted in traditional morality.
So attempting to ignore, overthrow, or subvert said morality, in favor of "normalizing" sexual perversion, CANNOT be "conservative."
QED.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one, GW.
OK, so you're an atheist, or (more likely, given your responses in post #220) a homosexual.
WTF are you doing on FR? Especially with a 1998 sign-up date?
To quote Jim Robinson:
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.
Key word there being "LICENSE". Again, a man-made law....while I'm trumping your argument with "Natural Law". What LAW OF NATURE forbids heterosexuals from having sex whenever or with whosoever they desire? Please tell me.
It's not a trump card. You're changing the subject, having had your favorite weapon "wiring inside the womb" knocked out of your hand.
The point about the "irrelevant to a Christian" was that even heterosexual impulses are in the main restrained in the interests of morality; so the mere presence of wiring in the brain causing a prediliction or predisposition to certain attractions is not enough to render acting on those attractions morally permissible.
As far as "LICENSE" -- take it in one of two ways. A figure of speech meaning "moral permission or sanction" (which would be covered above); or in the context of the current controversy over Prop 8 in CA and "gay marriage", license offered by the state. In which case your "man-made" charge goes away, since it applies to the queer judge's ruling.
The LAW OF NATURE forbids homosexuality on pain of extinction.
Homosexuals cannot even maintain their OWN population without poaching on the offspring of "breeders" : which is why they want so many "sexuality" and "tolerance" classes going down to kindergarten, in order to prepare the field for future recruits.
Again....Christian law does NOT trump Natural Law.
"Natural law" as you call it, is a man-made construct.
As are all models of neural wiring, hormones, and the like. Many homosexuals have "recovered" after having been recruited into the lifestyle, and many are recruited: I therefore conclude that there is more than one mechanism operating, despite your attempted ex cathedra claims.
Sure, homosexuals can live as heterosexuals, in order to appease societal norms, but.....they cannot change what God made them.
That's not true of all homosexuals: not all are hard-wired as such.
Those that are, are still compelled by morality to abstain, just as many other hard-wired impulses must be resisted.
And certainly, arguing for the "right" for a state sanction for what remains a perversion, is dead wrong.
Consider yourself highly commended.
Just two minor comments.
Science is not a matter of politics.
In essence and theory yes; but now, unfortunately, due to the Marxists (Gramscian infiltration), it is.
Even more lamentably, politics is not a matter of science, but of demagoguery.
Newt Gingrich is entitled to believe in the science of global warming based on the data and still be a good conservative. Especially if that belief was formed before the damning e-mails were made public. There is precious little distinction being made on these threads between accepting science or rejecting science on the one hand and what the political implications one draws from that science on the other hand. Gingrich, for example, has always made it clear that free-market solutions for the science of global warming should be found and, if they are not found, the Democrats will find "solutions" which will impose socialism. That is a perfectly sound conservative point of view.
There are two problems: one is that a view that "the science is settled" is incommensurate with true science, as science is always self-correcting over time and subject to revision as new data are acquired.
As Feynman pointed out, the scientist must bend over backwards to find any holes in his data OR theory; and be overly generous towards any alternative explanation.
(Note the recent revelations of satellite data showing Lake Michigan being at some 600oF...)
And the other issue is government control being sold as a Free Market solution, e.g. "Cap and Trade". The problem is the implicit government fiat as to the "acceptable" level of emissions.
Cheers!
“You’re saying that a homosexual cannot be for small, limited government, low taxes, free-market capitalism?”
Nope, I’m saying that unless you are also morally/socially conservative, you arent’ conservative. The institution of marraige is a bedrock conservative issue. Homocon is about allowing homosexual marraige and special rights and protections for homosexuals....that ISN’T conservative.
The heterosexual family is the foundation of American society. Destroy that, and America has fallen....no matter how low your taxes...etc.
This is where Ann has messed up...and she should know better. If you don’t comprehend this, you shouldn’t call yourself “conservative.” What are you “conserving.” You may be a “libertarian”, but that isn’t necessarily conservative. On the issue of homosexuality...libertarians are just “libertines.”
So you are suggesting she should only accept speaking engagements from organizations with whom she is in complete political agreement?
You do realize she had to cancel an appearance in Canada because they couldn't guarantee her safety. She wasn't going there to tell them what they wanted to hear, she was going there to tell them what she thinks...and they didn't even want her to speak.
She's made it clear she's against gay marriage...do you honestly believe she's suddenly going to change from speaking her mind to (a very unCoulter-like) pandering?
I’m neither an athiest, nor homosexual. Not that it’s any of your business.
Just making the observation that fiscal Conservatives are FULL members in the Conservative wing.
And FreeRepublic has been my homepage since August, 1998. And probably hit this site 10X more than you do on any given day.
Get lost, you freak.
“She’s made it clear she’s against gay marriage...do you honestly believe she’s suddenly going to change from speaking her mind to (a very unCoulter-like) pandering?”
Yes, to some extent. I believe she will avoid upsetting this group, which I consider a form of pandering. Also, now that her pride has been ruffled, I expect a radical change in her direction on the homosexual issue to be possible. Bottom line is she doesn’t belong there...period. One cannot compare her addressing a hostile crowd of liberals to her addressing a friendly crowd of sexual deviants wanting to be considered ligitimate.
If NAMBA decides it wants to be for low taxes, limited government, etc. and call itself “conservative.” Will she, et. Al., then address them also? C’mon....time for some common sense to be used here. Homosexual behavior is wrong...it can never be considered conservative...except by “extreme libertarians” which are not conservatives but “libertines.”
“Just making the observation that fiscal Conservatives are FULL members in the Conservative wing.”
NOT when they proclaim views that attack the social/morale conservative pillar in regards to homosexuality and other abherant practices...at least not here on FR. The site owner has been very clear on that.
Defending the homosexual agenda, even under the guise of “tolerance” or “neutrality” is just not acceptable here. At least that is how I understand Jim Robinson’s recent posts. Maybe he has drawn a “line in the sand” as well? So don’t call Grew Wiskers a “freak” when you are defending “freaks” (homosexuals) and those that enable and support them (actively or passively).
Well said.
The Founders intended that America be a Christian Nation, and they intended that we legislate social behavior using the standards of Biblical principle. As a Christian nation, which holds that the Bible and the Spirit of Jesus reflect and embody the pinnacle of God’s Truth, it is appropriate to legislate based upon the precepts of Christ. While society tolerates the individual practice of religions other than Christianity, it is not appropriate to allow those of other moral systems to be given the reigns of control to shape the laws which govern the behaviors of the whole.
Every law reflects a moral foundation, a belief about what is right and wrong and how the world should work. Every law is an attempt to limit human behavior and apply boundaries. Given our Christian heritage, and the fact that the nation is currently populated by people of many religions, it is imperative that the Christian voice be overtly considered and preferred in the public debate.
Government usually generates legislation because of an experienced violation of person or property. The pain of violation is a reflection of the violation of a higher moral law. The legislature’s job is to engage in vigorous debate about the standards of proper behavior and enact law as a guide to excellent Godly personal and social behavior. It is the job of a righteous legislature to use Biblical moral standards as a guide to the creation of a secular code of conduct.
Link to Christian Legislation
To answer your question: I'd be happy with the laws that the Founding Fathers enforced (in other words, Libertarian Party members need not apply).
Let's see what the mindset of the Founding Fathers was when it came to "practicing homosexuals":
"It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws--the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:
'What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] 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. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . . I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; "peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum" (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei" (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).'" (Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769, Vol. IV, pp. 215-216).
You'll note that their laws didn't take kindly to "buggery". In fact, up until the sodomites intimidated their way into having the American Psychiatric Association remove homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders, there were sodomy laws in EVERY state.
:-)
Ann has lost her mind.
“The free market is a wonderful thing.”
I glad you agree.
Please forgive my delay in responding. I have been in the hay fields and underneath some vehicles of late. 18 acres left and we are done for the year, save the hauling.
I share your assessment of the founding of the United States. Somewhere downstairs I have a book from the late 70’s or early 80’s called the Second American Revolution; it was at the time of the awakening of evangelicals that was finding voice in CBN, the Moral Majority, and may have peaked about the time Newt G. orchestrated the Contract with America.
The issue has always been what kind of “bedfellows” can you include in your coalition. I detest homosexuality; it is a first order perversion, a sin punishable by death. Ranks right up there with witchcraft, Satanism, child sexual abuse, etc.
When we seek these days to affect a secular government through popular election we have to make decisions about what or who we can include or tolerate as political allies.
Satan has always sought to join the Church. The Church has always struggled with how involved to become with society and government. I can’t fault the Quakers, for instance, doctrinally. Turning the other cheek is purely scriptural, but not a recipe for success as a nation in this age.
At some point the Cross and the Flag part ways, don’t they?
I appreciate your studied response(s)! You are certainly a serious student of Church and American history.
While in high school, my parents bought 40 acres outside of the small town that I grew up in. 10 of those acres were alfalfa. The fond memories of "bucking bales" in my HS years, clear into adulthood is still with me. I come from working stock (one uncle was a dairy farmer, another a wheat farmer), so I know of what you speak.
The issue has always been what kind of “bedfellows” can you include in your coalition. I detest homosexuality; it is a first order perversion, a sin punishable by death. Ranks right up there with witchcraft, Satanism, child sexual abuse, etc.
Hence all the more reason to keep "active" homosexuals out of a party that is "supposed" to espouse traditional family values. Would you welcome "proud" pornographers into your coalition? How about adulterers that don't have any plans on changing their immoral lifestyle; but even worse "flaunt" it? Incestuous people? I think not. Our job is to educate our fellow American's that conservativism isn't only limiting the scope of government when it comes to financial issues, it's to "stand strong" on moral issues as well. If your household were riddled with abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc. etc. etc., would you not want to get your moral issues straightened out before you made sure your checkbook balanced? I see our country in the same light. God blessed our nation BECAUSE it was founded upon Christian principles, and He is damning us because we're abandoning them.
I appreciate your studied response(s)! You are certainly a serious student of Church and American history.
Thanks for the kind words. I must say that theology isn't my forte', however, through Scripture I do know the difference between right and wrong.
Thanks for your post, and if you ever need help bringing in the hay, give me a holler.
Coulter seems afraid of being called “homophobic” or “conspiratorial.”
She should get over it.
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.