Why don't you Libtard/ Progressives/ Democrats just say it?

USFREEDOM911 said:
Some of the Native American tribes viewed such an individual as a bridge between the lives of men and the lives of wemen.
There was no stigma in any such relationship.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. Thank you for the info. I am always happy to learn.
 
Socrtease said:
I need learned cites on both the underlined. Something historical, something not written as opinion by religious people trying to prop up their own beliefs. A historical text would be nice. Focusing primarily on the claims that the bible is the THE RECOGNIZED source of morality for the founders in their framing of the constitution, and that is was a SOLE SOURCE.
Click to expand...

As you no doubt thoroughly read this source you'll find numerous Biblical citations to justify Locke's theories:

The Second Treatise of Civil Government
1690

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm#ch04

Here's a typical example:

IT may perhaps be censured as an impertinent criticism, in a discourse of this nature, to find fault with words and names, that have obtained in the world: and yet possibly it may not be amiss to offer new ones, when the old are apt to lead men into mistakes, as this of paternal power probably has done, which seems so to place the power of parents over their children wholly in the father, as if the mother had no share in it; whereas, if we consult reason or revelation, we shall find, she hath an equal title. This may give one reason to ask, whether this might not be more properly called parental power? for whatever obligation nature and the right of generation lays on children, it must certainly bind them equal to both the concurrent causes of it. And accordingly we see the positive law of God every where joins them together, without distinction, when it commands the obedience of children, Honour thy father and thy mother, Exod. xx. 12. Whosoever curseth his father or his mother, Lev. xx. 9. Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father, Lev. xix. 3. Children, obey your parents, &c. Eph. vi. 1. is the stile of the Old and New Testament.
Click to expand...

CHAP. VI.
Of Paternal Power.
Sec. 52.
 
Southern Man said:
No, on traditions and what has been shown to benefit society.
Click to expand...

Denying homosexuals the right to marry does not benefit society. It harms society by not allowing them to create stability in their relationships/households.

Tradition for traditions sake is stupid. It only protects traditions that can not be justified. Our founders rejected tradition, even in marriages. Prior to the enlightenment arranged marriages were the tradition. Those ideas were rejected in favor of romantic love as the basis of marriage.
 
RStringfield said:
Denying homosexuals the right to marry does not benefit society. It harms society by not allowing them to create stability in their relationships/households.

Tradition for traditions sake is stupid. It only protects traditions that can not be justified. Our founders rejected tradition, even in marriages. Prior to the enlightenment arranged marriages were the tradition. Those ideas were rejected in favor of romantic love as the basis of marriage.
Click to expand...

Queers never had a right to marry, ever, and society has done just fine. Change for change sake is stupid. Traditions are based on centuries of trial and error, rejecting the crap and keeping the good.
 
Southern Man said:
We're talking specifically about morality.
Click to expand...
?

You must follow the "rules" in basketball, its a basic code of "morality". Sure there are more rules in the bible about life than there are in basketball about basketball, but in reality there is no definitive difference. If somebody comes in and plays outside the rules they are expected to get called for it and suffer consequences, etc. They might even get kicked from the game, often do, for fouling too much.

Now, all that being said, was basketball founded on the "principles of Christianity" because its founder was a Christian?

One does not mean the other.
 
Southern Man said:
Queers never had a right to marry, ever, and society has done just fine.
Click to expand...

Society has done just fine, for you, maybe. It's not just fine for homosexuals. Society was doing "just fine" with slavery, monarchy and most other traditions, at least for those who benefited or were unaffected by those traditions.

Southern Man said:
Change for change sake is stupid. Traditions are based on centuries of trial and error, rejecting the crap and keeping the good.
Click to expand...

I fully agree. This is one of the crap ones and should be rejected.
 
Damocles said:
?

You must follow the "rules" in basketball, its a basic code of "morality". Sure there are more rules in the bible about life than there are in basketball about basketball, but in reality there is no definitive difference. If somebody comes in and plays outside the rules they are expected to get called for it and suffer consequences, etc. They might even get kicked from the game, often do, for fouling too much.

Now, all that being said, was basketball founded on the "principles of Christianity" because its founder was a Christian?

One does not mean the other.
Click to expand...

Yet if basketball was played in Roman times it would be a very different game, probably involving lions and stuff.
 
RStringfield said:
Society has done just fine, for you, maybe. It's not just fine for homosexuals. Society was doing "just fine" with slavery, monarchy and most other traditions, at least for those who benefited or were unaffected by those traditions.



I fully agree. This is one of the crap ones and should be rejected.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been fine for many folks who make bad lifestyle choices, and that usually benefits society as a whole.

Perhaps you can show an example of a society where queer marriage has been done and benefited society, then maybe the change should be considered. If not, I say then it should be rejected.
 
Traditions backed by the force of law can only protect the crap traditions. Traditions should be accepted or rejected by the people acting without the restraint of laws, except to keep them from engaging in force, theft or fraud in the practice of a tradition or new fad.
 
RStringfield said:
Traditions backed by the force of law can only protect the crap traditions. Traditions should be accepted or rejected by the people acting without the restraint of laws, except to keep them from engaging in force, theft or fraud in the practice of a tradition or new fad.
Click to expand...
Like the tradition of free speech?
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
This is just more circular nonsense. Your definition of a "bad lifestyle choice" is based on your religious biases.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Its based on common sense of what's normal moral healthy and natural, as well as what is a genetic dead end. Your argument doesn't work for queers, and it doesn't work for drug abusers either.
 
Southern Man said:
Like the tradition of free speech?
Click to expand...

?

Let me guess, you are equating the "tradition" of free speech, being PROTECTED by law (i.e., others may not use force to stop one from speaking), to the tradition of hetero marriage only being ENFORCED by law (i.e., others may use force to stop one from marrying).

See... except to keep them from engaging in force, theft or fraud in the practice of a tradition or new fad.

You apparently are unable to differentiate between acts of aggression and those acts intended to protect against aggression.
 
Southern Man said:
Not at all. Its based on common sense of what's normal moral healthy and natural, as well as what is a genetic dead end. Your argument doesn't work for queers, and it doesn't work for drug abusers either.
Click to expand...

Like I said, circular. We've been over all of this tired nonsense before.

You have acknowledged that normal is neither good nor bad. Therefore, it is not relevant to whether something should be prohibited or allowed.

How is it unhealthy? Should all unhealthy acts be prohibited or is this as irrelevant as normalcy?

How is it unnatural? Let me guess because it is not normal. lol... There is nothing in a consensual homosexual act that violates our nature. We are rational animals capable of a wide range of choices. We are not beasts of instinct alone.

It has been pointed out numerous times that being gay does not mean you cannot procreate. But not naturally, right? LOL... Further, even if it was a genetic dead end, so what? Society may well be better off if some people do not procreate. A genetic dead end is neither good nor bad, therefore, it is, again, not relevant. Regardless, whether it is or not a genetic dead end and whether that is good or bad, is certainly no business of the state's.

What you consider moral is based on your religion and this is all there is to your weak argument.
 
RStringfield said:
Like I said, circular. We've been over all of this tired nonsense before.

You have acknowledged that normal is neither good nor bad. Therefore, it is not relevant to whether something should be prohibited or allowed.

How is it unhealthy? Should all unhealthy acts be prohibited or is this as irrelevant as normalcy?

How is it unnatural? Let me guess because it is not normal. lol... There is nothing in a consensual homosexual act that violates our nature. We are rational animals capable of a wide range of choices. We are not beasts of instinct alone.

It has been pointed out numerous times that being gay does not mean you cannot procreate. But not naturally, right? LOL... Further, even if it was a genetic dead end, so what? Society may well be better off if some people do not procreate. A genetic dead end is neither good nor bad, therefore, it is, again, not relevant. Regardless, whether it is or not a genetic dead end and whether that is good or bad, is certainly no business of the state's.

What you consider moral is based on your religion and this is all there is to your weak argument.
Click to expand...
Your argument doesn't work for drug abusers either. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top