Pride Before The Fall (Horowitz Sticks it to the Fundies!)

FrontPage Magazine ^ | 5/20/03 | David Horowitz

[Maximilian]

Having sex is part of life liberty and the pursuit of happeness. The government does not have the authority to tell adults which other adults they can have sex with and how... You may surrender this right to the government, but we conservatives do not.

So the founding fathers were fighting for the right to commit sodomy without interference from King George? I don't think so. I'm trying to remember that part of the Declaration of Independence where it talks about sexual promiscuity.

Please show me one genuine historical figure who is considered a "conservative" who would support unlimited sodomy, before you try to claim the label of "conservative" for yourself. Was it Edmund Burke you were thinking of? Or maybe Russell Kirk? I don't think so. How about Andy Sullivan? That's more like the "conservative" you're promoting -- English poofters who come to America to practice HIV-positive bareback sex.

[breakem]

Thomas Jefferson is the same guy who wrote the declaration of independence. so which of his writings is in error the one you cite or the declaration.

You folks that get all your answers by quoting the founding fathers don't seem to realize that just set the whole freedom thing in motion. Shall we ignore the emancipation proclamation because it wasn't passed in the 18th century? Is it ok with you if women vote (uh oh, I better think about that one).

You forgot to explain why having these laws which are so Jeffersonian in their nature (LOL!) and using the criminal justice system in this way does not constitute big government. You really don't need to answer, it's obvious.

[Remedy]

are beginning to accept that some people, for whatever reason, are gay.

POSTS #218, #199, or remain deluded.

[Maximilian]

Animals are not people and cannot give legal consent. You're being ridiculous.

So buggery is only wrong because the animal cannot give "legal consent"? This sounds like an argument from PETA. What if we could get a chimp to sign a contract? Would buggery be okay then?

[Remedy]

You lack the common sense required to understand the documents you have mentioned.

[eastsider]

However, I believe that adults have the right to have sex with other adults who are agreeable to it. What bothers me on these threads is that homosexuals are individuals with rights, like the rest of us.

I agree that there is a natural right to sex (coitus), but radically disagree that homoeroticism is sex, even if homoeroticism does imply use of one's sex organs (genitalia).

[breakem]

I defer to your knowledge of what each of the founding fathers was thinking. Your straw man does not hold water. Do you think the founders actually sat down and thought through every implication of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happeness; or all of the rights referred to in the 9th amendment. Do you think we started the country with rights ideally defined by the laws. If you do, tell it to women and the slaves and refer to all the laws and court cases since then.The question on sodomy is not whether or not it is moral, it is what business is it of yours or the government to pass laws against what is a free act.

You refer to unlimited sodomy, what the hell is that, a 24 hr cable channel?

[longtermmemmory]

Christianity is marked by PERSONAL responsibility for your conduct. It is a code of conduct not only for yourself but for how you interact with others. Certain interactions with others are prohibited. (adultery, stealing, homosexual sex)

But that is religion.

Take religion out of the equation and every effort to prevent homosexuality developing in children must be taken. There is nothing wrong with teaching children that it is an unacceptable lifestyle. There is nothing wrong with teaching children homosexuality is undesireable.

There are people who have various fetishes. there is 2.78% of the population that likes to achieve orgasm by sticking or recieving genitals in their body from their same sex. That does not mean we have to suddenly declare their behavior tollerated because they exist. Every sexual fetish exists but we do not celibrate them. (swingers, bdsm, animals, fish, dead)

You mistake christian charity for the aflicted with sin for tollerance under the law. Misguided charity has created the catholic homosexual priest pedophile scandal. Many and adolescent would have been protected from sexual torture had the church adhered to their own teachings about the unacceptable sexual behavior that is homosexuality.

[breakem]

So we agree on rights, but not on what sex is. Generous of you. I defer to your knowledge of homoeroticism. I do know that some states prohibited oral and anal sex between all couples. Was that sex or was it heteroeroticism or are you Bill Clinton's attorney?

[breakem]

and you lack the intelligence to carry the discussion. If standing for freedom and human rights is lacking understanding, I am guilty as charged.

[breakem]

I have answered the question already. I was addressing the issue of consent. If you want to discuss interspecies dating take your stand and we'll respond.

[eastsider]

Bill Clinton was right: "oral sex" is not sex. If it occurs between a man and a woman, it's sexual. If it occurs between two people of the same sex, it's genital.

[AnalogReigns]

When a non-Christian (or even a liberal so-called Christian) tries to make a point that "Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality so...." I know they are speaking from ignorance about Christianity and the Bible.

Christianity always saw itself as the rightful heir to the Old Testament; the continuence of God's people--yet in a New Covenent.

Jesus isn't recorded to have spoken of a lot of moral behaviours the Old Testament condemns.... like child abuse or sacrifice for example, that doesn't mean such is fine and dandy. Jesus also clearly taught He was not sent to do away with the Old Testament laws, rather to fulfil them.

Both Old and New Testaments very clearly condemn homosexual behavior...the Old Testament calling it an "abomination" (same term applied to child sacrifice, by the way) the New Testament--through the Apostle Paul in the book of Romans, calling it evidence that God has "given over" societies to their own corruptions--and hence need Jesus as Savior.

It's not surprising to me that a society such as ours which has largely embraced abortion on demand (the modern form child sacrifice to Molech) is fast moving toward the acceptance of homosexual devience as "normal" too. Quite sad Horowitz can't see that.

How someone as well tuned as Horowitz is to the corruptions of the Left can't see the clear agenda of homosexual lobby groups--to tell people its normal behavior, and that people who disapprove on moral/religious grounds are "biggots," on par with the KKK.... I just don't understand.

Perhaps he's undergoing burnout....as even the right in Washington has its inconsistancies and troubles.

Politicians are politicians, whatever their stripe....

[longtermmemmory]

so if the animal is in heat and exhibits mating behavior, then by your definition that is consent and is ok as long as it occurs in the bedroom.

[breakem]

320

I don't think you're following the discussion. The constitution is not intended to list all human rights. How long would that be. Most define it's purpose to delineate government powers. Earlier I referred to the 9th amendment wich refers to other human rights.

I didn't give up any rights and put them in the hands of justices. I said people have the right. That means the government cannot address that. How you define standing for rights as giving up rights is a mystery to me.

[breakem]

I meant just the opposite. You misread. When I said animals can't give consent, what did you think that meant, that I believe they could? LOL!

[breakem]

332. If oral sex is not sex, then I take back a few of my high school confessions. Thanx Bubba for straightening that out. People like you have been quoted by middle schoolers to justify their sexual activity to their parents and to the teachers. Part of the Clinton legacy.

[Maximilian]

I agree that there is a natural right to sex (coitus),

On what basis do you make this assertion of a natural right to sex?

[eastsider]

There's no need to be so defensive. A simple explanation of where the "right" to homoeroticism comes from would do.

[tdadams]

Refute what I've said so far. Failing that, prove that you even understand it.

Other than your trite little quip you've said nothing else to me. Am I supposed to "prove" your opinion wrong?

Prove you're worth the effort. So far, the evidence is lacking.

I'm sorry, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that you're of any importance to me.