Join Us @:
Free email alerts!
Well, I also could careless what two gay men or women do behind closed doors. That I agree with. Just don't tell me about it, I don't want to know. LOL I don't want to know what my friends, what my brothers do with their individual wife, I much less want to know what my gay co-worker did with his lover. My issues with homosexuality is the rapid spread of STDs and the fact that gay man, more than gay women, tend to have well over 10 partners a year. Not exactly a healthy habit. However, I ask all militant gay groups to no shove it down my throat or my children to accept homosexuality. However, I have a right to say that their homosexual actions is wrong.
As for the escort and participant and both wanting to be there......hmmm. I don't know about that. While there are many escorts that are willing partners in the crime of prostitution, there are also quite a few girls that are very much unwilling partners and have either been forced by a pimp or by someone that kidnapped them and sold her into prostitution.
Capitalsim, I have always believed, is not about doing anything and whatever, at any cause to gain money. There are responsabilities that come with capitalism. I believe that we have witness in America what happens when capitalsim runs rampant and the only care is the bottom line, how much money can you make for a company. I am a big believer of capitalism, however, I believe in a humane capitalism in which individuals are treated like human beings and not merely seen as a means to make money.
As for America's crumbling, I agree with you that it has a lot to do with the over spending, the entitlement programs, etc, but this is just part of the problem I mentioned in which people are only thinking about themselves and what they want, the "ME FIRST" mentality is a huge part of the economic meltdown of America. And yes, the moral decay in America is also a huge part of our meltdown. An individual should never put himself first, others always come first. By taking care of others, by helping others, we take care of ourselves and increase our self-esteem.
Our moral decay has led to unwanted pregnancies which in turn lead to abortions, correct? I read that a staggering 70% of black pregnancies are out of wedlock, what do you think this is doing to the black community? Over 60% of low income black homes are missing a father. Low income white families are rnot better off and neither are Latino families. Higher income families with two parents are also becoming harder and harder to keep together. do you not believe this adds to the moral decay of America? the break up of the family?
Moral decay has led to entitlements, over spending and to many other things that have led many a culture before us to fall flat on its face.
I hate the fact that gays want to shove their lifestyle down peoples throats. I don't like it either and there is nothing wrong with your opinion homosexuality is wrong, however I do not agree our government should spend money with the few states that still enforce sodomy laws. FYI, a man and woman can enjoy this type of pleasure as well.
"As for the escort and participant and both wanting to be there......hmmm. I don't know about that. While there are many escorts that are willing partners in the crime of prostitution, there are also quite a few girls that are very much unwilling partners and have either been forced by a pimp or by someone that kidnapped them and sold her into prostitution."
Again LL, I believe we should use our resources to go after the pimps and human trafickers and not the escorts and the customers. If escorting remains illegal the victims will be too afraid to come forward to report the abuse.
The statistics when it comes to black families is extremely sad, but its not the moral decay that is screwing up the black population it is the victim mentality and affirmitive action. If you feel your whole life you are entitled to something without working for it, then it just brings you down. I am not talking about all blacks. Some are very successful, but I am addressing your statistics
Shawn pretends we shouldn't legislate morality everyday here in America?
We do this everyday and we should do this everyday : implement and enforce laws that are based on Christian morality and nothing else. God defined what is right and wrong from the beginning. All of our traditional criminal laws are based upon it, even if Shawn does not want to admit this.
Unfortunately, shawn seems to believe that between doing what feels good and doing what's right, most people will chose the latter. Or at least the former only in moderation and without harm to others; but mostly the latter. Thousands of years of human existence seem to dispell that naïveté, however.
"Unfortunately, shawn seems to believe that between doing what feels good and doing what's right,"
Believe it or not you can do what feels good and have it be right as well. You meet a girl at the bar, you get in the mood. You go to her place, you put on a condom, you have fun and many relationships start out this way.
If a person wants to go out and court somebody, buy flowers, spend money on taking time to get to know somebody star in in their dreamy eyes. watch When Harry Met Sally and save themselves till the wedding, more power to them.
Its really nobody elses business to tell others how they want to live their lives.
Funny how you cut off my quote -AND ON THIS SITE! LOL (Not yelling, laughing.)
The rest of the quote suggested that you assume most people would choose to do what is right. I was not suggesting that what feels good and what is right is diametrically opposed -certainly there is overlap. I thought that was obvious.
I'm really talking drugs, sex, theft, etc. Given the un-policed opportunity, most people will use drugs because it makes them feel good- at least initially. (Interesting that this piece was in the HotAir Headlines this morning. Clearly what started out as feeling good for these people devolved into something that was absolutely not right for them. As an aside- and I know we can't prove it because we don't know these people or even if they're still alive- but I'd bet you a steak dinner that theyeach started smoking pot before using any other type of drug. Take that bet?) A slight twist on LL's example about the one-nighter would be that both participants were intoxicated, didn't use a condom, a pregnancy and ultimately an abortion were the result. If there weren't DUI laws in place, how much more often (that doesn't sound right...) would this scenario occur? Lots, would be my guess. How many more highway deaths would occur without DUI laws? Same answer. Why? Because as NL said, people inherently forgo what they know to be right for the sake of what feels good- and often what feels good has a spiraling, debilitating effect. As evidenced perfectly by the people in the link above.
Nothing wrong in seeing the good in people. What's dangerous is failing to see the bad.
I'm not sure why are using DUIs as an example, because that fall into the direct caus scenario. You are directinly endangering somebodys life if you drink and drive. If you drink in front of the TV you are only doing damage to yourself.
There are bad people sure, and if they directly harm somebody else, they should be punished.
Ok, let's go with what you say and a step farther..."You meet a girl at the bar, you get in the mood. You go to her place, you put on a condom, you have fun and..." condom breaks, the girl gets pregnant, the "father" doesn't want the child, the "mother" is out of a job and was just looking for fun and now they murder the child through an abortion. Ooops! your supposedly good behavior just turned into a real nightmare for an innocent child!!!
you meet a girl, you have fun, you use a condom, condom breaks and oops now you caught an STD. you don't have health insurance, you have to use public, tax payers fund it, insurance. You never see the girl you slepted with, but you sleep with others and pass on the STD you caught that night!
You see, Shawn, Free Will IS A GREAT THING when you use it in a way that doesn't affect unwilling, innocent party(ies). When your use of your FREE WILL causes others harm that is when your Free Will should be regulated as it is on a daily basis by our laws which used to be based on Judeo/Christian values, certainly the Declaration of INdependence was and so was our Constituiton!
Your Free Will argument does fall flat on its face since what you claim we should all do is do what we feel like and not as we should. With our Free Will comes an incredible amount of Responsability. When we fail to exercise this responsability there is the potential and in many cases the sure thing that we are the ones imposing our will on others for our miss use of our Free Will. This is why laws are created Shawn!
Free Will works when you live in a society where good moral consciousness have been formed. When people are clear on what is Right and Wrong, but when you live in a society where you, the individual, gets to decide what is Moral and what is not. When you abuse your Free Will, this is when your argument falls flat on its face and it is something that you refuse to acknowledge. Our society today is full of individuals that do not have a moral compass, individuals whose moral consciousness was never instructed, never matured. Individuals who believe in moral relativism which is the single most destructive aspect of our society today.
I am not an advocate to ban anything sexual, even drug wise when it is ONLY ADULTS involved out of their own FREE WIIL, but to believe that today's adult entertaiment is such an industry is not only naive Shawn, but an out right lie! I want to desperately believe that you are naive beyound naive, but sometimes and especially when you defend today's adult industry as you do which is involved in all types of illegal actions and involved in removing the Free Will of some many women, this is when I have a hard time believing that you are naive...
GLEE who cares for this show, silly show, let it be on the air. Sadly too many Americans need cheap thrills to get their lives going. My beef against GLEE is that it portrays high school kids doing all types of abnormal things. When the show is seen by stupid, immature high school kids they believe that what they are seeing is how they are suppose to behave and these idotic kids immitate what they see on GLEE. However, if it is an adult over 18 watching, whatever, so be it. But I am a big believer that as a parent it is my duty to guide the Free Will of my children until they turn 18. Even then, it is still my duty to guide them.
One of two people that I was hoping would not be part of my thread. Liberallies seriously dude, You win! I lose. Your points are awesome. Now I am looking forward to talking to NL a person that does not answer questions with questions.
Have a good night night now :-)
I would rather give you victory now, but I you insist on sticking around, please don't answer for other posters okay? It is rude and you a debate one on one I will give it to you if you insist, but please show some class
Eh? what? what the heck are you talking about on your last paragraph?!
No, I will not abide by your rules on anything Shawn. I thought I made that clear to you a long time ago. Maybe you should show some class by dropping your defense of the porn industry which uses underage girls and takes away the Free Will of too many people. You know the Free will that you claim to cherish, but refuse to acknowledge that the porn industry takes away from so many people. You show some class. WOW!
I guess you cherish your Free Will, but the heck with the Free Will of others.
Answer questions with questions? eh? what the heck are you talking about? you said this last itme we exchanged posts before you ran away. Unsure what you ment by it.
Like I said to you before I really do not know what you want from me. I enjoy debating people because it is fun. Debating you is no fun. You ask the same questions, I will give the same answers, you will repeat the same questions and get off of on a tangent on something totally unrelated.
I said I wlll let you have the last word in debates. I am pretty sure you are not here for debate but to simply ruin my thread. I had this topic up for a weeks now, and not one post from you. Now it looks like NL wants to debate me and you decide bud in.
I told you before I really don't want you as a part of my thread. I ended up deleting policing morality part 1 and you stayed out of part two " thank you" Now you are back at the end of the trilogy. However I will debate you if you truly want to, I am not barking orders on you. I am politing requesting that you be a gentleman and stop answering questions and comments I make to other posters. If you don't listen and abide there is nothing I can do, I just find it to be rude.
Seriously? don't tell me you are also paranoid?!
Posting on this forum of yours has NOTHING to do with NL posting on here also. Don't look for ulterior motives where none exist!
And what you want versus the reality of things are two different things! You know I am exercising my Free Will, which you claim to cherish so much, and I am posting on this thread.
I ask the same questions over and over again because you seem to ignore the points or believe that by ignoring questions based on facts, like, "why do you support and industry that removes the Free Will, which you claim to cherish so much, from individuals?" You praise Free Will, you claim to love it and embrace it and then you turn around and support an industry that not only hates Free Will, it actually does everything within its power to remove it from underage girls and women who were forced into the industry. You praise an industry which is heavily involved in the killing of babies in the womb of a mother, thus removing the Free Will of these babies. So, while you claim to cherish YOUR Free Will, your support of the porn industry seems to indicate that you could careless about the Free Will of others. If this is not the case then prove it through debate.
Don't be paranoid, I mean this as a fact NOT as an insult. I am not here to ruin your thread. I am here to debate and share my opinions. Nothing less and nothing more.
Also, like I said last time, you claimed that I answer questions with questions. Unsure what you mean by that.
One post and I am going to bed. You tend to answer questions with questions, its a common trait with you and it will be something you do when we are debating, it is only a matter of time. If you refrain I will be very impressed and I will have a very hot serving of humble pie.
I am a very strong advovcate of going after anybody that uses a girl that knowingly used a girl under 18 in an adult film. Anybody that forces anyone into an adult film is scum as well and should be locked up for a long time.
As far as the abortion issue. I am not a fan of abortion and I do not encourage it. Most adult female film stars use the pill and If they became pregnant and aborted the child, I would not agree with it.
So it is pretty much established that I do not support any of the things you imply I support, so please stop asking me the same question. I have answered it for the umpeenth time.
Lets continue this tomorrow. Its late.
You'll read this tomorrow.
You claim not to support abortion, I take you at your word. You claim to not support anyone that forces porn on an underage kid, I take you at your word. ok.
What I am trying to understand which I have never understood, why do you support an industry, the porn industry, which is heavily involved in forcing under age kids to watch and act in the porn industry and which is heavily involved in pushing for abortions?
do you not see your contradictions? You don't support abortion, you do not support underage girls being forced into the porn industry. Yet you support an industry which does both of the things you do not support. I guess this is where I am attempting to understand your strong support for the porn industry. By supporting this industry and promoting it as you do, you are actually supporting abortion and underage girls being force into unwanted sex. Does this not make sense to you?
When I tell someone I support a candidate, when I tell others I support an industry, I am also advocating and supporting that person's actions, beliefs as well as the industries' which I claim to support.
For example, I am 100% against pedophilia and child trafficking, correct? But then I turn around and tell you, I support NAMBLA. Wouldn't you scratch your head and say, wait, wait a minute. how can you be against pedophilia and child trafficking and claim you support NAMBLA?
I hope you are understanding my point.
and go for it, ask me questions too. I will answer them. Not looking for a fight, not looking to belittle you, not looking to preach to you. I am honestly attempting to understand you and attempting to get my point across as clearly as possible without being accusatory or assuming things.
I will repeat myself in case you didn't read it before. If you are over 18 and you are, out of your own Free Will, not forced, involved in porn and you do not force others to watch it or use it, then yes, that is your business. God will judge you and the harm you cause to others. I have a right and moral duty to tell you that you are using your Free Will in a sinful way and it is wrong what you are doing. But I have to respect your Free Will and cannot impose my Will on you. Not even God imposes His Will on us. Who am I, then, to impose my will on anyone? But I can and I amust speak out against the sin of pornography which is completely different than attempting to force you to do something.
I find that too many people today feel like someone speaking out against an action, against someone's beliefs means that the individual who is speaking out wants to impose their Will on others. This is so FAR from what I want to do.
Anyway, as always, I wrote a long post. Like I said, not looking to fight or to belittle you or be condescending. I am attempting to understand you and hoping that you understand me and see my point of view.
....having a hard time falling back asleep, so I might as well post before trying again.
"do you not see your contradictions?"
I honestly do not see my contradictions LL. Let me explain why. This is where you always have an issue and you will not accept what I say. I support the industry, but i am opposed the the negative aspects of the trade. This truly is possible Liberallies. Let me give you some other similes
I do not support:
However I support Gun Rights.
I do not support
However I support Phillip Morris and other companies that sell their product
I am not sure why, but when you give examples of hypocrisy, you can't seem to differeniate between apples and oranges. You also say I am a hypocrite because I support Free Speech on record albums, but I do not like profanity on NB.
It baffles me that you do not see the difference between the two. One is something that somebody will pay to buy and nobody is forcing them to listen. Newsbusters has rules against profanity and there are many ladies of all ages on this board that do not like listening to that type of language . I like to watch cussing in movies or I sometimes cuss in real life, but I do like to see it on NB. Do you truly not see the difference?
Ok, I will try to fall back asleep now, but please note that this is my second attempt to answer your question. Hopefully you can move on to something else.
I am all for enforcing rules and punishing any bad doers in the adult industry, but I am in favor of their right to sell and make their product. Hope this explanation is good enough, because it is the best I can do.
I am confused, you support the industry, but are against the negative aspects of the trade? EH?! Honestly, this makes ZERO sense!
Let me ask you some questions and hopefully you will be able to do what you claim I cannot do, yes or nos will suffice.
1) Is the porn industry involved in having underage girls participate in their films?
2) Is the porn industry involved in the drug usage, trade, distribution?
3) Does the porn industry market to under age boys?
4) Is the porn industry involved in making abortion available to everyone and making it more accesable?
You also claim that porn, gambling, sodomy, prostitution and other such things are ok with you when they involve two adults acting out of their own free will since supposedly these actions do not hurt a third unwilling individual.
How about the man that takes money that was supposed to go to food for his children and he uses it for prostitution, gambling? now what? Third parties, who didn't even know this stuff exists, are now being affected, correct? Where is the Free Will of the family members who are affected by prostitution, gambling?
Sodomy, well las long as you don't catch any diseases from it...oh oops, there we go again. You can catch an STD and pass it on to unwilling parties. Your exercise of Free Will will now impose on the Free Will of others.
What you do not seem to get, Shawn, is that your Free Will ends where my Free Will starts Where the Free Will of my children start and of course vice-versa.
Society, our culture, we, I, us have a complete Right AND Duty to regulate such things as pornography , gambling, etc because these do not only affect willing adults, but they also affect unwilling adults and children. This simple fact, Shawn, you either honestly do not see it or you choose to willingly ignore it so you can push your pro-porn, etc and not feel guilty.
What do you tell children who are going hungry because one or two of their parents have become addicted to pornography, gambling? "Tought luck kid, your father was exercising his Free Will!"?
It is a lie, a huge Libetarian and Liberal lie, a meme, to claim that what two consenting adults do behind closed doors doesn't affect anyone else. This is one of the biggest lies that Western Culture has bought into along with Moral Relativism.
We shall see what Shawn has to say today. I have some time this weekend and think it is hightime I had this discussion with Shawn. :) Besides, the cowardly troll, Harry Braun is unlikely to return, so this is the only game in town.
On behalf of my late father and grandfather, Senper Fi, Marine.
Hello there NL.
Wow I am in for it now. NL is about to take shawn to school.. Sorry I am not Harry, but I sure hope I am capable of defending my points as well as him :-)
Ok NL, I love the High Time reference, however one my favorite posters on here said that she lost somebody close to her that had to do with pot, so unless somebody intitated the conversation me with, I have never posted or brought up pot for a long time.
This thread is more about what people feel is moral. Sorry if two gay people want to have sex behind closed doors, It is none of my business, I love the fact the adult entertaintment is legal, I love that we have the freedom of speech to watch what we want on tv and listen to music. on cds, I would like it that people when they are over 18 have the right to make their own decisions about what they want to to their bodies.
Also I love Christians, They are very kind and i respect their religion and I go to Church. However I feel that I do not have the right to impose my will on others. Our laws are not Christian Laws simply because people came to this country to escape religious prosecution.
However some conservatives choose to learn from the liberals. Freedom only rings, when it is done the way they like it.
When we call something a 'crime' what we reallly mean is the state has proscribed that activity and is going take punitive action against anyone who engages in the proscribed behavior.
What is morality? Morality is a code of conduct, a code of ethics. They come in two flavors : mutable and immutable. The immutable codes are invariably attributed to God. They were authored by God and are therefore not redefinable by man. The mutable code of ethics, and there really is only one, is defined, and redefined, and redefined ,,,, by man. This elastic specification of wrongdoing has a history of societal disaster.
All crimes in our society have their origins in a moral specification. Why do we make rape illegal? Because God said it was immoral. Note that some societies do not treat rape the same way as ours does. Sharia, for example. Under Sharia, much blame for 'rape' is placed on the woman., and she will quite likely be stoned or murdered by her male relatives, "honor killing". The Muslim God said the woman was immoral, provoking rape!
What our society at its founding called crime was nothing more, or less, than the transgression of God's moral code as laid out in the Christian Bible. No better proof of this exists than the laws of Colonial Massachusetts where it was a crime to gossip, dance on Sunday, or engage in any form of sexual intercourse other than between husband and wife with husband on top! I'm not sure where in the Bible they got the 'on top' part.
Our laws today are not entirely Christian laws. This has come to pass over the last century in large part because of the moral sensibilities of the secular humanists who follow Marx, Engels and their ilk. We have created new crimes not recognized by Christian morality out of the cloth of secular humanism. Most of these new offenses are rooted in the possession and aquisition of wealth, something the Bible does not view as sinful in of itself.
The upshot of this entire argument is this : ALL LAWS are based in someone's notion of morality. The notion that the state should not and cannot legislate morality is absurd.
I have always been very clear about my parameters. To not interfere with what two adults do behind closed doors. It really is none of my business or anybody elses business. When it comes to people that hurt from morality like a STD or rape, there are two types of way they can be hurt from it. Direct cause and consequence. Somebody forcing somebody to do something against their will is a direct cause. Somebody getting a STD is a consequence. Nobody was forcing that person to film a movie and they knew the risks coming in, same with somebody that works at a coal mine. There is no guanantee that mine will no collapse. However, anyone that forced anybody to so something against their will should be punished.
I am not arguing with you that laws are based on morality, I am also not saying we cannot enforce some morality on people either.
Now that is ripe. You have argued constantly and consistently that moral infractions that you believe cause no harm to others are not to be legislated by the state. This is egocentric . Just because you do not perceive harm to others does not mean that harm has not occurred. Those two adults behind closed doors, why do you presume no other persons are affected? Clearly, that is often not the case.
Your standard : it is permissable for the state to outlaw immoral behaviors which YOU clearly see cause harm to others. It is in the interests of liberty to permit harmful behavior if no obvious victim is presented.
I see your standard as hypocrisy. ALL LAWS are based on somebody's morality. You like those that are based upon YOUR morality and decry those with origins in moral codes you see as superfluous.
You don't seem to mind enforcing your morality on some offenders. I don't expect you think too highly of NAMBLA or any other child molestors, pederasts and baby rapers. Many of these people do not believe they are doing wrong. NAMBLA in particular, claims their 'partners' are consenting! Who are you to impose your world view on them? You also take a dim view of extortionists, racketeers, drug smugglers and hoodlums? So, what is the distinction between these micreants and the perverts? The smugglers claim they are merely supplying a demand. How can this be illegal? There is no 'victim' in narcotics trafficing, is there?
When I first came to NB, over four years ago. I remember people like Hater and ProfesserTruth and others. I remember you were always the first the challenge them and how many other members cheered you on.
I thought to myself, wow this guy NL207.He must really be an awesome debator, because he seems to dispose to trolls very easily. You did dispose of trolls easily, you made very good points and knew that that liberals use emotion over logic and lets face it, most liberals are pretty easy to dispose of.
Now after getting into a few rounds with you in past few months., I am not sure if the man lives up to his reputation. Let me explain why. You are using liberal tactics of using extreme similes and making apples and watermelon comparisions.
My argument has ALWAYS been, what two consenting ADULTS do behind closed doors is nobodys business.
Let look at your talking points and comparisions.
I also never said laws were not based in morality. So NL perhaps you can come up with some real examples on why we should enforce what goes on between two consenting adults behind closed doors.
This sort of reminds me of the the liberal that asked why it is okay to force people to have auto insurance but not medical insurance. Umm perhaps because it is only forced if you drive?
And you just reinforced it. You pick and choose what moral offenses you think should be criminalized. In point of fact, every offence I mentioned above is immoral in the eyes of the Christian God. Not all of them are illegal in the eyes of every state in this country. Some have apparent victims and include violence. Others do not. Who is the victim of drug smuggling? Prostitution? Porn? Drug use? Sodomy? Gambling? These are all consensual, yet I am sure you support outlawing at least one of these vices. Why don't you support outlawing them all?
My point is that all of these vices are harmful to society. That is why they are immoral. Any of them are fair game for the state to prohibit. The consequences of what goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults never remains behind closed doors. It is those consequences that society has a vested interest in curtailing. Everyone understands the harmful effects of a murder. STD's. Lost wages. Lost productivity. Addictions. Divorces. Bastardiized children. The harm caused by these consequences is harder to trace.
As far my debate skills go, have you noticed the wolves always seem to appear when I chew on somebody, even you? I think you know why : A fresh kill always attracts scavengers.
I had forgotten ProfessorTruth completely. The particular liberal never really mattered to me. It was their vile arguments and despotic philosophies I detest. I wish I had more time to oppose it.
eyes of a Christian God. Like working on the Sabbath, Being prideful and and Gluttony. If you preach picking and choosing, then why are these not in our laws?
The reason is because, our founding fathers wanted to create laws that make sense, but also allow us free will
"Who is the victim of drug smuggling? Prostitution? Porn? Drug use? Sodomy? Gambling? These are all consensual, yet I am sure you support outlawing at least one of these vices. Why don't you support outlawing them all?"Who is the victim of drug smuggling? Prostitution? Porn? Drug use? Sodomy? Gambling? These are all consensual, yet I am sure you support outlawing at least one of these vices. Why don't you support outlawing them all?
Why do we not illegalize all immorality?
It is not possible to reasonably enforce all such laws. People who wish to indulge in these sins will simply ignore such laws. the limitations of time and resources you have cited will prevent universal enforcement. This means such laws will not be universally enforced. There are many, and you appear to be one, who argue that if these laws cannot be enforced universally then the 14th Amendment compels they should be stricken. I disagree. These laws should be enforced whenever a citizen who has been adversely affected by the immoral and illegal behavior complains. That is a must. As I quoted Jefferson earlier this day : "a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another" This comes under the heading of injury. We must NOT legalize immoral behavior that has negative public consequences, if only to protect the rights of those who have been injured by such behavior.
I think we can clearly see another aspect of legal toilerance of deviance in DOMA. What DOMA is expressly preventing is the legalization and publlic sanction of reprehensible moral conduct by one state from being imposed upon another through the Faith and Credit clause. The reason states should NOT legalize this conduct is this very issue : by normalizing deviance they impose it upon everyone, willing or not. This is just one reason, and a very good one, why immoral acts must be within the scope of the state to prohibit.
"We must NOT legalize immoral behavior that has negative public consequences, if only to protect the rights of those who have been injured by such behavior. "
Sorry NL sometimes things have adverse effects, but it does not mean we should stop somebody from having freedom. I certainly do not want to impose anti gun laws because of people getting gunned down by illegal firearms, I also do not think it is right to stop drilling in the gulf because of what happened. Did you see how much oil gushed out of the well and the the destruction and monetary cost and cleanup for multiple states? I do not like the fact that an enviromental disaster happened on our soil, but I sure do not believe in stopping drilling and increasing our dependence on foreign oil.
As far as DOMA goes. I totally disagree with what Obama is doing. You know what I hate NL? I hate it when people put words in my mouth so I am not about to do it to you so I want clarity. . Are you saying we should make being gay and being in a gay relationship illegal because it can be a slippery slope?
"And you just reinforced it. You pick and choose what moral offenses you think should be criminalized."
Hmmm didn't you contradict yourself when you said not all these laws can be enforced? Lets legalize some, but don't worry about some others. Please explain why when I do it, it is picking and choosing, but when you do it, it just makes sense.
"sometimes things have adverse effects, but it does not mean we should stop somebody from having freedom"
This is what you just said: According to your rationale, we should not outlaw drunk driving in the name of preserving freedom because this irrepsonsible and immoral drinking could harm someone else? It is not "freedom" to allow one citizen's pursuit of happiness to injure another. I think you just lost this debate.
I contend that we cannot redefine "marriage" to include man-man or woman-woman sexual contracts. Not only is this an abomination in the eyes of God, but once the legal precedent has been set to include liasons other than the traditional male-female sexual union in the definition of marriage, the door is now open to include yet broader arrangements under the guise of marriage. Will there be a call to allow shepherds to wed their sheep? Isn't mean, cruel society discriminating against these good shepherds by preventing their marital bliss with their sheep? Sound ridiculous? No less ridiculous than "gay marriage" would sound to 19th century Americans. Understand how normalization of deviance works : Once the moral boundaries are erased, literally anything becomes accepted.
"This is what you just said: According to your rationale, we should not outlaw drunk driving in the name of preserving freedom because this irrepsonsible and immoral drinking could harm someone else? It is not "freedom" to allow one citizen's pursuit of happiness to injure another. I think you just lost this debate."
I hope you have the lungs of the big bad wolf NL....
Because I hope that you can huff and puff and blow your house made out of Strawmen down. Welcome to shawns house of bricks. I said in this thread that I totally agree with DUI laws. Okay it seems that either you did not fully understand the last time, perhaps I can explain apples and watermelons to you.......S L O W L Y
It is extremely interesting that you know what my parameters are, yet you still decide to misrepresent what I say. On top of that, hey lets bring up gay marriage, something that I am against.
Once again, do you believe gay relationships and acts of gayness like sodomy should be against the law, yes or no? Avoiding the question are you? While you are at it, tell me why said it is important to follow all of Gods rules, then you turn around and say, no we should only make illegal the ones we can't enforce. Yikes I remember everyone thought Jason Seahorn was one of the greatest cornerbacks in the league. He sure was overrated huh?
If it is not too much trouble Mr. NL. could you please respond on the bottom of the forum. This thread line is almost as thin as your simile.
Prostitution is legal in Italy. The PM of Italy paid a girl to have relations with him. The problem is that the girl was only 17. My opinion is that is that if he knew she was only 17 that he is a scumbag and get what is coming to him. However she easily looks 20 and he might not have known she was 17.
I don't know if this is on topic, but since this is my forum I can break my own rule. Liberals hate the fact that some people believe in God. They hate that they praise Gods Son Jesus Christ during Christmas and Easter.
So what does Congressman Pete Stark decide to do? He is proposing a bill to call Saturday ..... Darwin Day.
This may seem innocent enough, but it is just a thinley veiled jab to mock Christianity and to advance the Global warming agenda to make the Goracle even richer.
Absolutely agree on both your subject and comment. Here's the video of Ann's answer to the "gays" question.
It's smart the way the GOP is approaching this; with DADT already repealed, showing an outright acceptance of the gay agenda takes away one talking point/one huge issue away from liberals. The question remains however, just how co-opted the gay movement really is by the left. If it's all about marriage, than they'll stay with the ruin-America crowd; if they want a chance at happiness and success with civil unions, they'll vote GOP.
Here's Breitbart's Big Gay Party.
I don't support gay marriage because It would wreak havoc on our medical system and taxes almost as much as Obama has ;-)
Having sex with other men does not appeal to me. However if other people want to do that type of thing it is not up to me to decide. As long as they are not totally in your face about it and force their lifestyle on you I am totally fine with it.
I believe a good starting point in getting gay votes is for some social conservatives to hopefully stop constantly comparing gays to child molesters.
about special acceptions was spot on; that's always been my opposition to repealing DADT.
Creating a special class doesn't help assimilate, it only segregates. And that's how you'll know what the real agenda is: will gays want to assimilate like they say they do? (We just want the same rights as everyone else... blah, blah, blah.) Or will they continue to stand with Liberals who want to place them in some sort of glass cage for all to look at?
Liberals don't necessarily want "equal rights" for everyone, they want locked in voting blocs since that't their ticket to terminal power. "Allowing" gays to think and vote for themselves would prove me wrong on that point. Somehow I doubt we'll see the left championing the GOP's newfound acceptance of rank-and-file gays.
I totally agree. The thing is how can gays feel welcome in party that a decent size amount of people keep telling them to they will be going to hell, or comparing their lifestyle to NAMBLA and beastiality?
Worry about what is going on in your own house and don't get all bothered about what others are doing.
In my opinion, there is nobody more dangerous than a person that is convinced of their own moral superiority.
I'm not so sure the political platform of the Grand Old Party has spelled-out talking points about NAMBLA and bestiality relative to homosexuality, but I get your point.
What is fair, however, is for a Conservative to suggest that NAMBLA -an inherently homosexual coalition- be condemned by both straights and gays. Gays unwilling to admit that within their ranks are some real sickos that need to be abolished (NAMBLA) certainly aren't welcome to my party. (I'm guessing bestiality doesn't really qualify as either gay or straight... I'd say that's more mental illness than sexuality.)
This is not to say that pedophilia and bestiality aren't committed by straights; they are. And straights who can't admit that and who won't condone those acts aren't welcome to my party either. Those folks are called liberals.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 ///
Certinly you don't believe the federal Government has the right to tell a grocery store what must and must not be shown on their own shelves, do you?
It's a store decision. Nothing wrong with it.
Media Research Center
L. Brent Bozell III, President
Editor at Large
P. J. Gladnick
Julia A. Seymour
Copyright © 2005-2014 NewsBusters.