Posted on 06/18/2004 8:52:52 AM PDT by NYer
The Bible does not tell us we should forcefully prevent other people from doing evil if that's what they want to do. If they sin, they will answer to God, not us.
"there has to be some authority who decides whether someone was justified in vandalizing a cinema, or whether they should be arrested for it."
Come on, let's limber up the old thinking muscles, here. Ready? One-two, one-two, one-two. Okay, now, take one step deeper into the process from "there has to be some authority."
What is the one thing that trumps property rights? The right of other people not to be harmed by exercise of those property rights.
That's why you can't just build a swimming pool in your front yard with no fence around it. Sooner or later somebody's two year old is going to toddle over and drown in it. It's called a "public nuisance."
So--we have a right not to be harmed by the cinema owner's use of his private property. Who says so? God says so. Government says differently? Then **to hell with** the government. The government is wrong. When the government is wrong, then measures up to and including overthrowing it through force of arms are justified. That's why we have a Second Amendment to the Constitution: so that the people would be armed in case they needed to replace the government.
"In the case of the colonists, they knew they would get in trouble with the authorities, but they did it anyway."
Yes, based on the thinking I outlined above.
You seem to be thinking in terms of government being the solution instead of the problem.
"So, to clarify: are you saying that people who vandalize cinemas in what you see as a good cause should be arrested, but given moral support by those who agree with their cause? Or are you saying that if people vandalize in a good cause, they should not be arrested for it?"
You mean from a moral standpoint? Of course they should not be arrested. What should happen is that the government and the theater owner should take it as a warning and temper their abuses.
And what are photographs like that if not advertisements for and inducements to fornication?
"Women make both the manners and the morals of a people. Neither rises higher than the gauge which women set in a community...Where a woman has bad manners, it always has in it an element of vulgarity which is more painful than it could be in a man. The result will be a society hopelessly vulgarized...with no end but to sink in an ever deeper abyss of vulgarity." -- Thomas Nelson Page, 1911
Bears repeating.
I'm putting it in my glossary of quotations.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - More from the Culture War. This is a more detailed article about the female homosexual film causing a ruckus in India.
Note how every time the objecting Hindu groups are mentioned, the use of the obligatory word "fringe". I don't think it's because of few numbers, it's just that world wide those who adhere or promote moral absolutes are being sidelined and painted as extremists.
Also noteworthy is that the "gay" activists in India don't like the movie since it doesn't pander to the normalization of homosexuality - one of the women goes mad and apparently dies, the other one gets married. Can't have that! I hope the "gay rights" movement dies a sudden death in India. It's the last thing Asia needs.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Hinduism - or more accurately, followers of the Vedic religion - teaches very strict morals regarding sexual behavior.
I agree with your comments. For some reason, a segment of the population (at large, and here on FR) don't [want to] see that evil actually exists and it does and will harm people irrevocably. Futhermore, their argument is that "if you don't like homosexual porn films, don't watch them". It's the same argument as "If you're against abortion, don't have one". To carry it further: "If your're against arson, don't burn up buildings or forests". Etc.
The problem with promotion or tolerance of sexual immorality, is that it creates a society of broken people. Even if you or I or someone else tries to live moral lives, the atmosphere affects everyone, especially children. So we are all affected. It's like living in a landfill - if you live right in the middle of a garbage dump, even if you keep your own house clean, the stench, flies and rats will get into your house too.
You're right. Asia doesn't need this crap to be sure.
"God forbid people form groups to lobby government for change."
Yes, God forbid that people who suffer from a mental disorder should be taken seriously when lobbying to have that mental disorder declared mental health.
There are two things at work in same-sex attraction disorder: one, of course, is mundane mental illness. The other is supernatural evil.
These people are "lobbying" for the proposition that our laws should declare a thing that is a composite of mental illness and evil be declared good, by law, and that we all be required to act as though it were good, even in the disposition of our private property and private lives.
It is astounding that any sane person should consider that a reasonable thing to "lobby" for.
And no, I don't want laws against lobbying for it. I don't think we should need them. I think people should be sane enough, and have sufficiently well-formed consciences, that no such "lobbying" would be taken seriously.
In fact, frequently the more you insist otherwise, the more vulgar some people seem to become.
It's Lady Eileen's.
And I myself am sometimes vulgar. Sometimes I even think it's called for. But then, I'm a guy.
You really have LOTS, and LOTS of growing up to do. I am not at all surprised by your response to this thread.
Though it sounds worse coming from the mouths of women, I think vulgarity is uncalled for, for both sexes. Maybe that's because I'm not a guy.
Emotional perversion exhibited through sex knows no racial or gender boundaries. It's a universal life style CHOICE!
Only Ghandi is revered who secretly had a thing for little boys.
"Though it sounds worse coming from the mouths of women, I think vulgarity is uncalled for, for both sexes. Maybe that's because I'm not a guy."
Well, after all, one of the things women have to do is civilize men. Without women, we're just a pack of beer swilling barbarians.
Aquinas ... to characterize homosexual desire and love as a cancer leads you off track.
There is not anything at all sensually superior in one form of sex over another. It all pretty much comes down to the burden we all have to bear, the hormonal combined with the tactile.
The bigger picture when contrasting homsexuality with heterosexuality is procreation. That is a significant consideration.
But the other bigger picture is affection ... who stimulates our basic selves.
Some people are just as naturally attracted to the same sex, as others are to the opposite. There is zero advantage to desiring a person of the same sex, and probably a risk of huge disadvantage.
For homosexuality to be condemned, even the act to be condememned (beyond the condemnation of non-marital sex itself) requires you to identify some harm to the act itself.
Heterosexual sex can be condemned on the grounds that a child might be reproduced, irresponsibly.
What is the essence of the sin committed by homosexual sex?
Maybe there is truth to what you say, but I always thought the basic nature of men was better than that, especially when they believe in God and have religious convictions. However, there are some on this forum who certainly have proven me wrong.
I hope it dies a sudden death across the world. I used to be so tolerant of it - but now since the "in your face" agenda, I want them to go back to the closet so I can nail the door shut.
Oh - an accurate portrayal! No wonder everyone (especially the GLT types) hate it! I have known (and liked) people of this "persuasion" many times in my life. They would have us think their way is better or normal. It is not, it is sad.
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.