Posted on 12/16/2003 9:31:19 AM PST by Willie Green
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:35:27 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Definition of an unbeliever: A Muslim in New York and a Christian in Mecca.
Well and good, we can dismantle most of the judicial and criminal departments right now then.
Let's see, if we eliminate the resources used against consensual crime, we could both dedicate more resources towards fighting real crime and save money at the same time. I like that.
Again, your own mind and desires are the ultimate authority, then.
You're making stuff up and rehashing tired Christian slander calling those who don't believe similarly immoral. This is also a tactic of the gay activists, as others here have mentioned.
A person just has to "feel" or "believe" that everything they do is right, and kick any horrid thoughts of personal responsibility out the door!
If it's lack of personal responsibility with regard to how you treat others then it's not purely a personal issue anymore, thus not falling under privacy or consensual. If it is purely personal, then be my guest and destroy yourself with your favorite poison.
If it is known, they were not sufficiently discreet.
It is difficult to hide every aspect of your life from your fellow soldiers -- they watch. Many will be discovered while being even more discreet than your average heterosexual. I once found out the unit thought I was homosexual because I associated with known ones, that's how much people watch. I actually had to end that by showing off my girlfriends, which is something I normally wouldn't do.
Let's agree to disagree on that. I admit there was influence, but I won't go that far.
>>>You're making stuff up and rehashing tired Christian slander calling those who don't believe similarly immoral. This is also a tactic of the gay activists, as others here have mentioned.<<<
Making stuff up? [BTW most people here would not necessarily call me a Christian...] I was merely commenting that if holy scriptures such as the New Testament, Old Testament, Talmud, Vedas and Puranas, and so on are just old irrelevant scraps of paper (and therefore all philosophy or works discussing morality based on their values are also irrelevant and useless) then the only thing left is your own mind, which constitutes desires and one's feelings about them. Or other peoples' minds.
A person just has to "feel" or "believe" that everything they do is right, and kick any horrid thoughts of personal responsibility out the door!
>>>If it's lack of personal responsibility with regard to how you treat others then it's not purely a personal issue anymore, thus not falling under privacy or consensual. If it is purely personal, then be my guest and destroy yourself with your favorite poison.<<<<
What??? The above comment makes no sense. Every decision anyone makes ultimately has some affect on others, unless such hypothetical individual lives alone on an island and is completely self supporting.
Not irrelevant, just not authoritative.
Every decision anyone makes ultimately has some affect on others,
If I stretch logic far enough, I can prove harm done to me by a Thai peasant in the rice paddies. That doesn't mean he's really harming me. Likewise, some homosexual boinking his boyfriend in Boise or a guy down the street with a grow lamp doesn't harm me either.
People for consensual laws do not establish harm first. First they declare something immoral based on some religious text or sociological ideal of the lawmakers rather than actual indication of harm, then they declare it illegal. The sad thing is, the harm usually begins after it's declared illegal due to the criminal underground that always follows.
Just doing a bit of research on this issue. Looks like you were wrong.
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.