Santorum Crisis Exposes Republican Weakness

The Pro-Family Law Center ^ | 29-Apr-2003 | Scott Lively

[EternalVigilance]

Absolutely true. And simply because a majority may agree on something doesn't make it right, like being in the minority doesn't necessarily make one wrong.

Uhmmm...that's what I said--only clearer.

I base my view of right and wrong on this issue on what God says in his Word; as has every generation in North America for the last 400 or so years.

I also base it on a knowledge of history. Every nation that has ever pursued the course you advocate has destroyed itself in short order soon after adopting it.

So what do you base your view on? The word of NAMBLA?

[tdadams]

Yes, and your point? I'm neutral on a lot of things - what one eats for dinner, where one takes their vacation, what clothes you might wear. Does that also make me a moral relativist?

There are some who would argue that all of those things involve a moral choice. I disagree. As I disagree with you.

I understand that this is an issue of particular importance to you, but you've said nothing that remotely convinces me of your point.

[EternalVigilance]

Yes, and your point? I'm neutral on a lot of things - what one eats for dinner, where one takes their vacation, what clothes you might wear. Does that also make me a moral relativist?

You equate sodomy with what you have for dinner? Ridiculous.

I understand that this is an issue of particular importance to you...

Just one more front in the culture war for the future of our free republic. A front opened by the radical homosexual activists, by the way.

...but you've said nothing that remotely convinces me of your point.

Hey, if the severe words of warning in Romans chapter one won't convince you, I certainly won't.

[tdadams]

I base my view of right and wrong on this issue on what God says in his Word

Well, that's fine if the nation was a theocracy, but we're not. Your religion governs your house, not a nation. What basis for this moral prohibition do you want to provide other than your particular religious devotion, which isn't shared by everyone?

So what do you base your view on? The word of NAMBLA?

I wondered how long it would take before you went for the gutter. So typical and so puerile. It never fails, sooner or later in a debate like this, people like you always show how empty your reasoning is.

[EternalVigilance]

I simply want to know what you base your opinions on.

Certainly it can't be on a knowledge of history; or you would know how damaging to any civilization the descent into hedonism is.

[tdadams]

You equate sodomy with what you have for dinner? Ridiculous.

Actually, it's not so ridiculous. The Bible (Leviticus ch.11, v.7&8) prescribes punishment for eating pork.

Hey, if the severe words of warning in Romans chapter one won't convince you, I certainly won't.

I understand the Bible is your moral rudder. But the point that seems to have escaped you numberous times now, is that this is not a theocratic nation, and believe it or not, there are many people in this nation who do not wish to base national policy on what the Bible says.

So, my challenge to you is... do you have any basis for your moral prohibitions that might resonate with a secular society? If not, you're going to lose this argument.

[EternalVigilance]

Your religion governs your house, not a nation.

Psalm 22
27All the ends of the world
Shall remember and turn to the LORD,
And all the families of the nations
Shall worship before You.[1]
28For the kingdom is the LORD's,
And He rules over the nations.

God governs the nations, not my 'religion'.

Show me one nation in history that has survived the mainstreaming of homosexuality, and you might have the beginning of an argument. Of course, there isn't one.

[EternalVigilance]

The Bible (Leviticus ch.11, v.7&8) prescribes punishment for eating pork.

Your ignorance of Scripture is showing. The New Testament makes it clear that Christians are not under the ceremonial law. But the New Testament is also very clear that homosexuality is still an abomination.

[EternalVigilance]

So, my challenge to you is... do you have any basis for your moral prohibitions that might resonate with a secular society?

I base my main argument on the fact that God has destroyed every nation that ever openly practiced and approved of homosexuality. I don't want God to destroy America.

But there have been countless posts on these sodomite threads that outline the incredible damage done by the practice on the the health and the pocketbook of the country. Of course, you all ignore them, and pretend those costs to society don't exist.

[EternalVigilance]

But the point that seems to have escaped you numberous times now, is that this is not a theocratic nation, and believe it or not, there are many people in this nation who do not wish to base national policy on what the Bible says.

Are you suggesting that America has been a theocracy for the last 200+ years? ...Because my position has been the position of this country for that length of time. The burden of proof is on you who want to change it.

[tdadams]

Just remember, all the Bhuddists, Muslims, and Confusionists feel the same way. Sure, it's fine with you to make America a de facto theocracy, as long as it's a Christian theocracy. But you'll probably welcome a secular government if, God help us, Muslims ever become the majority.

[EternalVigilance]

All of those religions you mention have always considered homosexuality to be an abomination.

[EternalVigilance]

I take that back. Muhammed liked little boys and girls.

[tdadams]

Oh, really? How convenient an argument. How do you then reconcile that Jesus said in Matthew 5, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law" (ie - the old testament)?

[tdadams]

I base my main argument on the fact that God has destroyed every nation that ever openly practiced and approved of homosexuality. I don't want God to destroy America.

Many nations have come and gone in the history of man. Is it your contention that the sole reason that every one of them was destroyed was because they tolerated homosexuals? Again, you're going to have a hard time making a convincing argument of that.

[EternalVigilance]

Why do you only post half of the verse? He went on to say that He came to fulfill the law.

[tdadams]

Are you suggesting that America has been a theocracy for the last 200+ years? ...Because my position has been the position of this country for that length of time.

No, America is not a theocracy, but with this statement it seems you are saying it is and has always been. Apparently that's just fine with you as long as its theological policy agrees with your religious beliefs. Talk about moral relativism.

The burden of proof is on you who want to change it.

I'm neutral, remember. I don't care to change it. But it seems to me that it is changing, otherwise you wouldn't see the need to be on here morally crusading.

[tdadams]

All of those religions you mention have always considered homosexuality to be an abomination.

Oh, OK, so you feel a Bhuddist government is just as good as a Christian government? No qualms about that?

[EternalVigilance]

Many nations have come and gone in the history of man. Is it your contention that the sole reason that every one of them was destroyed was because they tolerated homosexuals? Again, you're going to have a hard time making a convincing argument of that.

Publicly accepted homosexuality is one of the key signs the end is approaching for any civilization. Think Rome, Greece, the Canaanites, Sodom, France...

[EternalVigilance]

No, America is not a theocracy, but with this statement it seems you are saying it is and has always been. Apparently that's just fine with you as long as its theological policy agrees with your religious beliefs. Talk about moral relativism.

You're confused.