Posted on 12/17/2003 8:08:22 PM PST by knak
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:41:36 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Concerning issues of sex, some people on this forum aren't any different from the Ayatollahs
They'd love to have the government prosecute people for premarital sex, adultery, gay sex, having dirty pictures, doing it in unusual positions , etc
I think the use of a term like "sodomite" is fine for a religious discussion, but its use in a political discussion destroys any notion of reasonable discourse, and is the type of labeling usually used by liberals to prevent disagreeing voices from being heard.
Think about how liberals use terms like homophobe, bigot, insensitive, neo-con and others.
Although I agree that "sodomite" is not a useful term for political discussion, it is not for the reasons you cited. It is a loaded term, which riles the pro-sodomites into conniption fits of hatred. Why, you might ask? Because it is merely truthful and descriptive. A sodomite is one who practices sodomy. Cut and dried. The words "homophobe, bigot" etc are a different class of words. Homophobe is an invented word, to shut up the opposition. Bigot is a real word, but used in an dishonest way, for the sole purpose of painting anyone who disagrees with the "gay" agenda as a KKK type.
By using the term "sodomite" you have done the same thing.
You are placing yourself on the pro-homosexual agenda side with this statement, although you may not mean to be. See my explanations above.
Personally, I consider myself a true constitutional conservative.
If you are a true constitutional conservative, then the founders of this country must have all been lunatics, since up until the advent of the homosexual activist movement, anyone espousing the thought of same sex marriage would have been scorned and perhaps been placed in a mental institution.
The way I see it, if heterosexual marriage can provide for legal benefit such as shared household health coverage or death benefits and the legal sharing of resources without probate and wills, then the constitution must extend these same rights to others.
So according to your logic, all these benefits should also be available to anygroup of people who want them. Why limit it to two men or two women? Why can't they be related by blood? Why can't it be available to three or five or ten people?
. Think about this- if you can limit the rights or privileges of groups you disagree with simply because you are in the majority,
How in he!! are anyone's rights being limited? If you agree with the "gay" activists that their rights are being denied, then you must think that mere behavior constitutes a group that then can moan about their rights being denied. Today it's homosexuals, tomorrow it will be polygamists, then pedophiles. It's in the workds already.
then 20 years from now when the world is godless and lost, will you idly accept it when religious or heterosexual monogamous people's access to services is restricted?
Services? What do you mean? Religious services? If the government starts interfering with religous services then it's immediately the second Civil War.
is that in the constitutional republic the majority MAY NOT use its influence to restrict or disallow privileges to the other groups.
Yes, but that word "groups" has never before been twisted to mean an amorphous group based solely on their perverse sexual desires and acts.
If Madison saw fit to make our country a model after God's own creation, with freedom rather than restriction,
You are being extremely disingenuous (or ill-educated) to bring in Madison - if he were here to speak for himself, I very much doubt he would step up in favor of two men marrying each other because they are addicted to anal sex.
then who the hell do you think you are to throw it away and go with mob rule?
So maintaining some basic standards of traditional morality and support of the natural family is now "mob rule"??? You're getting carried away here.
If we ignore this, we are no different from the Ayatollahs of Iran.
Ah, now we're Ayatollahs, because we want to continue in accepting "marriage" to mean "marriage" and not change it to mean "two men having anal sex but very likely not even being monogamous" or "two women doing strange things with implements and one of them being artifically inseminated".
(Sorry for the length, anyone who reads this, but his points cried out for a rebuttal.)
Their ping list is long, but they all sound like the same person. Many who disagree with them just ignore them, but some of us like to point out their fanaticism from time to time so that casual readers will know that freepers are not all extremists.
The point is I don't oppose everything some homosexuals want. If they want to serve in the army, no problem. If they want to come to the local grammer school and pick kids out of the herd to be their sex slaves. Of course not!
I've said this before and I'll repeat it with the hope you will finally understand. The country is based upon individual rights and responsibilities. The "agenda" is not the agenda for all homosexuals. Many items were proposed by what many homosexuals consider to be extremists. You can't lump all people into one category and then rail against them all. It's unamerican, disingenuos and immoral, as far as I'm concerned.
Many of us on this site who understand your problem have stopped bothering to post against your onslaught of false science and fanaticism. I chose to log in every now and then and point out what you are doing.
No...just homo apologists...right breakem?
So if we allow gay marriage, we'll all end up on breeding farms, producing homosexual Aryan babies for an army of Nazi Super-Soldiers
Wow
ROTFLMAO!
I know I've gotten in my share of tussles with folks who want to turn the clock back to 1965 on how our society deals with homosexuality. The point of this thread is, (or at least originally was) what political consequences will follow from the President's statements on gay marriage. He needs the far right to rattle sabers at him, this shows the folks in the middle (whose votes he really needs badly) that he's not overreacting. The thing that makes them the most fearful is the establishment of a theocracy, of the kind that those who decry homosexual "agendas" would be quite comfortable with, if adopted.
Bush knows that every vote in the middle that he can capture is a vote taken away from Howard Dean, if the religious right chooses on principle to not give him their vote, at least he knows it doesn't go to Howie. However, I'm pretty confident that despite all the moaning and griping about what Bush has not given the religious right, they will go into that voting booth remembering all that he did give them, and how very little they got during the eight year reign of Slick.
And that will mean one less vote needed for Dean to move into the White House.
Brilliant strategy.
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.