Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
And you defend this sad (pathetic) lifestyle because???
Freedom to live without persecution from religious fanatics such as yourself, ASC.
The misuse of the words "freedom" and "liberty" were discussed extensively in the Libertarian thread. Once again, the moral relativist crowd confuses "enslaved to evil" (notice I didn't use the word "sin"), with that of true freedom and liberty.
Quote:
*Lifestyle*: the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group.
And you defend the attitudes and moral standards of proud homosexuals because???
Because what two consenting adults do (within the law) in the privacy of their own home is private, legal and none of your business.
And this is where I ask you if you have a problem with consenting adult incestuous relationships (of course as long as it's done in the privacy of their own home).
The problem with your "Bruce and Kevin sodomizing each other as much as they want in the privacy of their own sodomy chambers" scenario is this:
As we've seen with the "gay rights movement", worldviews rarely stay in the privacy of their own home. One side has to win the culture war, meaning that one side also has to lose.
Quote:
It's pretty hard to find something to "love" about that lifestyle Rusha.
You must be confused ... I don't expect someone such as yourself to love homosexuals ... or anyone else for that matter. You are incapable ...
It's you that is confused (all around, but in this case when it comes to the definition of "love").
Loving someone doesn't mean you should let them destroy their life. True love is the ability to say "no".
Quote:
Quick quiz: One of us has accepted the "love" of Jesus Christ by asking Him to be his Lord and Savior. (Which of us would that be, possibly the agnostic that isn't "sure" that God even exists?).
Ironically enough, it is the Agnostic who shows more Christ-like behavior than the self-professed Christian in this case.
Yet I haven't heard you say the words "Go and sin no more". In fact, you don't accept the word "sin".
Quote:
I made my point to Kett regarding reinstating sodomy laws and when the death penalty should be used (not in all cases, as that would fall under Jewish ceremonial laws).
You made no relevant point outside of "my religion doesn't like it, so neither do I".
God's word is good enough for me. I went a step further and showed the secular case against homosexuality.
Quote:
Newflash: Our country hasn't always valued sexual perversion Rusha. That along with murdering the innocent unborn in the name of "self ownership of one's body", is somewhat new to this once Christian nation.
Considering the perversion on this very forum of certain individuals promoting marrying off children to adults under the guise of their religion, you really do need to learn the difference between religion and morality.
LOL. I'm still wondering what Ralphie would have done had I said that it was immoral (I suspect that he would have asked for proof through Scripture). While I haven't peeked into Ralphies thread, I would assume that all that have posted would say what "their opinion would be on the matter", not what "their interpretation of Scripture would be on the matter"; I did the latter.
If you want to come over to the Libertarian thread and beat that dead horse, be my guest.
Quote:
Quote:
I asked you a simple question, and will ask you AGAIN:
And you defend the sad (pathetic) homosexual lifestyle because???
There is no valid reason to oppose adults having consenting sex with other consenting adults.
Then incestuous realtionships are ok? How about bestial relationships, or would you go "religious" on me by saying it's immoral?
Quote:
You, like Ralphie and Arthur are confused as to what a theocracy is. While our nation had been founded on Christian principles, we were never a "Christian Theocracy" where the "state religion" was Christianity.
I could counter your statement by saying "Until you provide a reason OUTSIDE of your religion (your religion being secular humanism/moral relative atheism), to NOT outlaw homosexuality, I will ...".
Because there is no crime ... consent ... and because the actual LAW agrees with me.
The law says that it's ok to murder 50 million babies in the womb in the past 38 years. Granted, we couldn't hear them "consenting"; but hey, no objection, no foul, right?
Quote:
A non-religious reason to outlaw homosexuality? Promiscuity,
Because we all know that heterosexuals are non promiscuous and never commit adultery or fornicate.
Quote:
disease,
Because heterosexuals NEVER EVER spread diseases to their spouse or partners.
Quote:
violence,
Heterosexual couples never experience violence in their relationship.
Quote:
child molestation,
Another thing that never happens with heterosexuals ...
I never said those that are exclusively heterosexual aren't into doing their own "thing". In fact, proud sinners rarely object to anyone else doing their own "thing", because who are they to judge someone else doing their own "thing", when they themselves are doing it?
(i.e. "Sinners of a feather flock together").
P.S. The rate of child molestation is MUCH HIGHER amongst homosexual males.
Quote:
the death of human beings and a culture. Need I continue?
Sure ... heterosexuals never die by the hand or sexual actions of one another.
Sure ... you may continue. Why stop while you are behind?
Obviously you don't have a clue as to what "death of a culture" means.
