Seperation of sex and state.

[AlAyeti]

Should the govenrnemt be in position to decide sexual matters or define what is and what isn't acceptable in regards to privately practiced sex acts?

Unless the issue is with children living at home and under the authority and responsibility of their parents, should "Government" be excluded from being involved in the sexual practices of individuals?

What a person chooses to do in private should stay in private as long as it is not an illegal behavior. Should laws be passed giving "cultural status" and cultural recognition to an individual under the label of a "Culture" if it is private and independent behavior defined by individuality and not birth ethnicity?

Much is made of the personal choice of religion, and how that effects a persons way of viewing society, but nothing is more personal than sexual behavior in regards to how it effects a persons views on his or her in society. All people engage in commonly occuring sex acts no matter their ethnic or country of origin. Can an individual sexual practice be embraced by a group of people and then be elevated to an exclusive cultural indentity?

Why should leguslative governemt be in the business to define a persons civil rights by their sexual behavior?

If government becomes involved in defining personal rights practiced in private, should the people vote or be allowed to amend the laws that govern society as a means to define and/or re-redefine societal norms practiced in private and between "Consenting Adults?"

Or should government be seperated from sexuality and have nothing to say about an adult persons private behavior?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

The homosexual agenda comes from the history, the well-documented history of Pederasty. It has now gained modern power by the ACLU.

Do you mean to assert that all homosexuals are pederasts?

Where is the belittling of homosexuals in any school anywhere?

Everywhere, actually. There are a vast number of students in my school that sport the "all fags should die" mentality (A commonly uttered quote you are likely to hear just walking the halls). Far more people belittle homosexuals than Christians, in fact. Of course, I can't speak for other schools, but I would assume that, for the most part, their situation would generally be the same. A vast majority of America claims to be Christian, after all.

But to echo Jose, I do not think we should seek to "belittle" people of opposing viewpoints. In my experience, civil debate seems to be far more effective.

Now, the government wants to "Legalize" not outlaw homosexual marriage. Let us not forget that the vast majority of voters in this democracy are being forced to have normality comprimised and indeed absolutely wiped away. There are already laws silencing any questioning of homosexuality as unnatural, wierd and wrong - even though science can prove that it is - and anyone that dares challenge a homosexual is risking a trip to jail.

Once again, I challenge you to define this so called "normality". I am inclined to believe that such a thing does not exist amoung humans, considering we are all individual and strange in our own ways.

Is homosexuality unnatural? It has existed in many species since the beginning. Does not seem so unnatural in that regard.

Wierd? Is it any "wierder" than my personal quirks? Your personal quirks? Are we not all wierd in a fashion?

Wrong? By what standard? The Christian one? Are we all obligated to follow the Christian standard? What constitutes Christian ethics as objective fact? If God indeed exists, than they are as such. However, God's existance cannot be proved.



I do not want to see the imposing of homosexual views on everyone, the same way I do not want to see the imposing of Christian views. Niether belief has the right to forcibly subject others to their respective standard.
What I DO want is acceptance and tolerance amoung opposing viewpoints. We must allow homosexuals the right to practice their ways, the same way we grant Christians the freedom to worship God.


Al, I am not sure where you get your ideas on the school system's regard towards Christianity, but as a student myself, I feel that I can objectively state that your statements are inaccurate. The schools I have been to have remained quite neutral on controversial issues, and grant all students the right to practice and preach their beliefs, as long as the doing of this does not cross the line into indecency. Corruption and partiality exists in some cases, but not to the extent that you suggest.

[AlAyeti]

Jose,

"I haven't seen the logic, I'm afraid. I won't call it hate speech, either. Worried, certainly. Unsupported by evidence, yes. Paranoid, perhaps. You obviously want the right thing for society and for children. However, by insisting on a vision of "what should be," and divorcing that vision from the facts of the world in which you live, you are doomed to frustration."

///

Please find a scientist that will disagree that sperm is for ovum.

And ovum for sperm.

Do that and you will rightly find me dwelling in the world of non-logic and paranoia.

If pedophiles are born wrong (nuerological abnormality) as you say, then, so are homosexuals. Unnatural is unnatural.

Also, homosexuality in ancient Greece was one and the same as Pederasty. And it was not celebrated. Look up Kineidos.

What you are asking is that modern society "progress" to accept what is clearly abnormal as normal. It is not I who is refusing to look at the facts. I want to see the facts about science not seeing homosexuality as aberrant behavior.

Now, does not the law include "sexual orientation" as a "new" protected class? Protected from discrimiantion and "hate speech?" Does not the "Gay Community" itself demand cultural status?

Effectively outlawing Christianity. That is, "historic and accurate" Christianity. You cannot have free speech and Christians. Abortion can be preached against because it is an act, but somehow homosexuals will not tolerate the "hate speech" against them. It is now written into law.

I have lived and worked in California for most of my adult life. No one dares utter a word in opposition to homosexuality. In my workplace, we have to celebrate sex acts as diversity. In fact it is brought to us by the cultural diversity department. Though the indecency of having to celebrate someone elses sexuality is overlooked and indeed forced on everyone, religion is a "private matter."

C'mon Jose.

I see the logic of chaos descending onto society as a natural occurence if and when same-sex marriage is forced onto America.

And those Mormons? Their Jesus is the sprit brother of Satan. Their god was once "just" a man like us, that worked his way through spirit wives and spirit children-begetting. No Biblical support but they believe it just the same. They can call themselves a Mack truck too, but they are not a Mack truck.

And, why can't they marry as many wives as they want to? "Marriage" is open to any definition now.

Next up will be Fido.

And those pedophiles and their boy "lovers" you know the ones being represented by the ACLU, just chalk up their marriages in the commonality of the divorce rate.

Why not? Anymore?

Progressive right?

It's a brave new world.

Yeah right.

[Bugmaster]

Please find a scientist that will disagree that sperm is for ovum.And ovum for sperm.Do that and you will rightly find me dwelling in the world of non-logic and paranoia. If pedophiles are born wrong (nuerological abnormality) as you say, then, so are homosexuals. Unnatural is unnatural.

I think this is an attempt to justify points #5 and #6:

5). Science (which science ?) can prove that homosexuality is unnatural, whatever that means.
6). Science (which science ?) can prove that homosexuality is morally wrong.

It's a pretty feeble attempt, though. From the strictly scientific point of view, everything that happens is natural; the job of science is to find out how it happens, and to predict how it will happen in the future. Sceince does not deal with morality, one way or another.

Even if we venture away from science, and into the realm of philosophy, your argument is still wrong. It sounds like you're saying, "people should only do whatever the majority of the population is biologically predisposed to doing". In this case, electricity, powered flight, and shoes are all unnatural and immoral.

What you are asking is that modern society "progress" to accept what is clearly abnormal as normal.

That's just an assertion. Homosexuality is "clearly" immoral to you, but most people (myself included) see it as morally neutral. If you want to convince anybody, you are going to have to offer some evidence or logical reasoning for why you think homosexuality is immoral; merely stating that it is immoral won't do you any good.

Effectively outlawing Christianity. That is, "historic and accurate" Christianity. You cannot have free speech and Christians.

Yes, most Christians seem to think that. A pity. I think that Christianity could really benefit from a free exchange of thoughts and ideas.

Though the indecency of having to celebrate someone elses sexuality is overlooked and indeed forced on everyone, religion is a "private matter."

I live and work in California, but I missed out on all those celebratory orgies somehow. Where do you work ? I want to work there too...

I see the logic of chaos descending onto society as a natural occurence if and when same-sex marriage is forced onto America.

You need to justify this if you want to get anywhere.

[Jose]

I haven't seen the logic, I'm afraid. I won't call it hate speech, either. Worried, certainly. Unsupported by evidence, yes. Paranoid, perhaps. You obviously want the right thing for society and for children. However, by insisting on a vision of "what should be," and divorcing that vision from the facts of the world in which you live, you are doomed to frustration.

Please find a scientist that will disagree that sperm is for ovum.

And ovum for sperm.

And what does this have to do with the discussion? The critical issue is how people's brains are wired at birth. If you get a female brain trapped in a body that can produce only sperm, you've got a mismatch. Is the Christian kindness to love the person (defined by the brain), or to love the plumbing?

If pedophiles are born wrong (nuerological abnormality) as you say, then, so are homosexuals. Unnatural is unnatural.

Yes--in both cases we're talking about neurological wiring that is not the same as "normal" or "the majority of" humans. This does not make it unnatural. The processes by which they come about are natural processes, which work through the mechanisms of embryology. That they come out not matching the majority biological pattern is odd, but not unnatural.

My point is, and has always been, that these kinds of natural events are Facts of Life. It is wrong to pretend otherwise.

The critical question is "what do we do in the face of these Facts?" Well, one possibility would be to impose 2000-year old guesses, and call them law. Another way might be to seek a way for society to deal with this without violence (bred of 2000-year old guesses) or persecution, if at all possible. A reasonable criterion, which we use in other venues, is to ask whether a particular behavior harms others. If so, it should be disallowed. If not, it's hard to see a valid reason to disallow it. This is why drunk driving is considered bad, and why more and more communities are banning smoking. They harm others.

A pedophile harms other. Therefore, this behavior should be disallowed. If it can't be cured, then we need to come up with some way of minimizing the contact of these guys with kids.

But, if two gay guys go into their house and shut the door, it has the same impact on everyone else as if it was a man and his wife going inside and shutting the door. If they want to do things that I would not do inside that house, why should I care? I do things inside my house that they would not do (like post things at DC&R). What I do doesn't harm them, and what they do doesn't harm me.

What you are asking is that modern society "progress" to accept what is clearly abnormal as normal. It is not I who is refusing to look at the facts. I want to see the facts about science not seeing homosexuality as aberrant behavior.

We aren't asking anyone to accept it as "normal." "Normal" is roughly defined as "what most people are like." Homosexuality is clearly abnormal, as defined as "what a minority of people are like." Being a scientist is also abnormal by this definition. I'm sure you would agree that we are not at all normal by anyone's standards.

Similarly, "aberrant" is essentially "something that deviates from common practice." It's an acceptable adjective here. But pretending that uncommon automatically means Bad isn't warranted. To be Bad, additional criteria are required. I apply the criterion of "harming others." You use the criterion of "deep embarrassment upon fantasizing over what they do in the face of a normal human sex drive, but a mismatch between their brain's gender and their plumbing." Why not stop imagining it?

Now, does not the law include "sexual orientation" as a "new" protected class? Protected from discrimiantion and "hate speech?" Does not the "Gay Community" itself demand cultural status?

They do not demand cultural status. They demand to be accorded the rights that many of us take for granted. We think these are "inalienable rights." Yet, we have taken many of them away from people based solely on how they were born. Homosexuals should be protected from hate speech just as you and I are protected from it, and just as ethnic minorities should be protected from it. This does not seem like a very large, or very complicated request. Just stop calling them "faggots," setting their hair on fire, and beating them against a barbed wire fence until dead.

Effectively outlawing Christianity. That is, "historic and accurate" Christianity. You cannot have free speech and Christians. Abortion can be preached against because it is an act, but somehow homosexuals will not tolerate the "hate speech" against them. It is now written into law.

Historic and accurate Christianity has perpetrated many sins against others. Those who did so believed they were True Christians, and that they were carrying out God's Will. Save us the malarky about history and about "accurate" Christianity. Every Christian group considers theirs to be the one Correct form. If some weird denomination of Christianity chooses to promulgate hate, even if they claim the bible tells them to, I say we should band together and work against them. They are wrong, no matter how loudly they proclaim that they are right, and that they are doing god's will.

I have lived and worked in California for most of my adult life. No one dares utter a word in opposition to homosexuality. In my workplace, we have to celebrate sex acts as diversity. In fact it is brought to us by the cultural diversity department. Though the indecency of having to celebrate someone elses sexuality is overlooked and indeed forced on everyone, religion is a "private matter."

California has a higher percentage of more enlightened people. That's why they voted for Kerry. Thus, they recognize that there is more to a person that his/her plumbing. They have discovered that it is not only possible, but easy to set aside the sex fantasies about what people do, and merely treat them as people. It's kinda like religion--set aside the squabbling over who follows what creed and accept everyone as fellow humans.

C'mon Jose.

I'm ready! Let's go.

I see the logic of chaos descending onto society as a natural occurence if and when same-sex marriage is forced onto America.

I think you need to explain why this has any likelihood at all of happening. You haven't yet done so. Perhaps, you may think you have, but all I've heard is the same assertion over and over that it will happen. Why?

And those Mormons? Their Jesus is the sprit brother of Satan. Their god was once "just" a man like us, that worked his way through spirit wives and spirit children-begetting. No Biblical support but they believe it just the same. They can call themselves a Mack truck too, but they are not a Mack truck.

And what is your evidence of these things? (...except for the Mack truck part; I get that)

And, why can't they marry as many wives as they want to? "Marriage" is open to any definition now.

Next up will be Fido.

You have such imaginative fantasies! But you might want to put this into a historical perspective: Joseph Smith reported that God told him to take multiple wives long before there was any discussion of gay marriage. Their practice has been going on for over a century.

And those pedophiles and their boy "lovers" you know the ones being represented by the ACLU, just chalk up their marriages in the commonality of the divorce rate.

The ACLU represents anyone whose civil liberties are threatened. They would represent you if you had a case. You have made another wild assertion without support.

[AlAyeti]

Jose,

Actions speak louder than words.

Sperm and ovum denote an absolute assertion of facts. And, of morality. Anyone that doesn't accept hedonism and licentiousness defined by "Neo" Liberalism are labeled bigots. I challenge that by using science as definition. I oppose the Progressive view as nothing more than Pederasty.

It's not just the homosexuals that demand their wrong-doing be licensed.

The condition of children sexualized in our inner-cities are not just an assertion but a fact asserted as evidence of the "fruits" of liberalism. California style liberalism.

The poor on welfare are not reaching out for higher moral calling and appreciating what is paid for by hard working people, no, they buy into sexual licentiousness and lean on worn-out excuses for the conditions. Someone and something is lying to them. And it is not conservative voices.

If there was a seperation of sex and state, fatherless children and sexual deviants would not be so prevelant. At least not celebrated.

Honesty and morality used to be one and the same. Now it is "subjective."

Homosexuals demend that what they do is not "wrong." Like them, you will force my children to be taught that these homosexuals can cruise into my Church or my children's schools and seek out the "Questioning Youth."

Anything I say to oppose the homosexualizaion of my country is deemed hate speech by law.

I want Seperation of Sex and State because I have seen what the homosexual agenda has acheived so far. In schools there is homosexual presence but no religion.

How did this come about? (Of course I know as a Christian.) How did secular minds get warped?

Sexual deviance taught in schools as anything but sexual deviance? I call that Pedophilia.

The same as humanists call religion mentioned in schools as proselytizing. If religion is offensive, so should be sexual deviance. Remember parents rights in California have been attacked and beaten. For reasons of pedophilia I do assert! Heterosexual pedophilia is as bad as the homosexual agenda directed at young "questioning" minds. Pure pedophilia.

Why not let parents know who impregnated their under age daughter? Democrat-Liberal lawmakers don't think parents should know. CPS already exists if a parent even hits their child. Incestual pregnancy justifying parental rights stripped away is a ruse. Pure Pederasty. Modern-style.

Like the young man that was murdered by his drug buddies against that barbed-wire fence, there are consequences to bad behavior. You did see the ABC news story on Matthew Shepperd? And consequences of misinformation of what happened by the press is the order of the day in the US.

Homosexuality like pederasty, should not be promoted with tax dollars.

I assert my right to the First Amendment as an American is just as valuable as a promiscuios sexual deviant.

Promiscuity is the foundation of the homosexual culture. I have the right to challenge them as I do MTV. Especially within the education setting. There is nothing decent about normalising homosexuality. It is more recruitment than education.

I live in California. There is nothing more enlightened in Californians than Sodomites or Romans that caused their own demise by the exact same reasons. California's "progressives" are borderline insane. The state is morally and financially bankrupt. Typical of Liberalism. Hedonism at any cost kills a free society.

Condoms are not morality. Abortion is murder in the first degree.

Californian Liberal-Progressives worship both.

And Sex and State? Why should I be forced to endure the beliefs of others paid for by my taxes?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Sperm and ovum denote an absolute assertion of facts. And, of morality.

I don't recall my science textbooks ever teaching morals.

[Chimp]

Like the young man that was murdered by his drug buddies against that barbed-wire fence, there are consequences to bad behavior. You did see the ABC news story on Matthew Shepperd? And consequences of misinformation of what happened by the press is the order of the day in the US.

He was murdered because he was gay. The defense lawyer said so.

What was that about misinformation?

[Jose]

The condition of children sexualized in our inner-cities are not just an assertion but a fact asserted as evidence of the "fruits" of liberalism. California style liberalism.

I suspect that you know little of the inner cities. I, too, know very little. But, friends who have grown up in them describe a world unlike anything recognizable to a Republican. Just as children born and raised in fundamentalist households grow up thinking fundamentalism is the only valid reality, so do children born and raised in poverty and despair, with really bad educational systems, grow up with the stamp of their reality upon them. I don't speak here of sex education or "liberal politics," but of what people learn on The Street.

The poor on welfare are not reaching out for higher moral calling and appreciating what is paid for by hard working people, no, they buy into sexual licentiousness and lean on worn-out excuses for the conditions. Someone and something is lying to them. And it is not conservative voices.

I think it definitely includes conservative voices. It includes many voices of all sorts of people, primarily because these people have no idea what's going on in the inner cities. We like to hold to an ideal, and think that everyone should be striving for that ideal. What happens when people strive for said ideal, but can never get any closer to it because there are just too many roadblocks?

You might note, by the way, that religion is one of the only things that many of these "poor on welfare" have. They do reach out for higher moral calling, but are trapped in conditions not of their own making.

If there was a seperation of sex and state, fatherless children and sexual deviants would not be so prevelant. At least not celebrated.

I suspect that you'd find no difference. There would still be children whose fathers have left them. There would still be homosexuals, since biology ignores political affiliation. As for celebration...we don't have it now, so it's unlikely it would exist then.

The trouble is, your ideal "separation of sex and state" seems to be "no sex education" and "fundamentalist Christian morals about sex." It's not separation, as I understand you. It's imposition of fundamentalist doctrine, which is actually strongly oriented toward sex (well, maybe against sex would be better phrasing).

Honesty and morality used to be one and the same. Now it is "subjective."

You're right. Now, "morality" is defined (at least by those with Moral Certainty) as fundamentalist doctrine. One is allowed to say anything at all, no matter how inaccurate, if it supports the doctrine.

Homosexuals demend that what they do is not "wrong." Like them, you will force my children to be taught that these homosexuals can cruise into my Church or my children's schools and seek out the "Questioning Youth."

Had my son turned out to be homosexual, I would have hoped that he would not be shunned, but rather that he could find a supportive environment in which to live. That's really difficult in a society that fears homosexuality so much as to invite violence against homosexuals.

Anything I say to oppose the homosexualizaion of my country is deemed hate speech by law.

I love it when you use hyperbole.

I want Seperation of Sex and State because I have seen what the homosexual agenda has acheived so far. In schools there is homosexual presence but no religion.

You know, you still haven't proved that there is a homosexual agenda. Now, if you'd actually go look, you'd find that there are typically more religious people in schools than there are homosexuals. If the students are lucky, there are enough different religions that they can learn from each other that there is no single right religion. Survival requires tolerance of diverse views. Regrettably, many schools are too homogeneous for this important message. The reason there's an issue with homosexuality at all is that it has been discovered that it's not a choice. Therefore, the schools do what they should do: attempt to educate people that this is a biological trait that cannot be escaped. Neither is it contagious. Therefore, it is possible to live alongside people with this trait without any consequences at all--except, in my experience, pleasant neighbors.

How did this come about? (Of course I know as a Christian.) How did secular minds get warped?

By studying god's creation.

The same as humanists call religion mentioned in schools as proselytizing. If religion is offensive, so should be sexual deviance. Remember parents rights in California have been attacked and beaten. For reasons of pedophilia I do assert! Heterosexual pedophilia is as bad as the homosexual agenda directed at young "questioning" minds. Pure pedophilia.

Well, look at it this way if you can. Your gut-level response to sex education in the schools is rather similar to my gut-level response to people who attempt to change my religion, or that of my son. Pure, visceral disgust. So, what should we do about it? Here are some simple ideas.

1. Learn tolerance of other views.

2. Try to figure out where these other views come from. How can people believe these things? They all have valid reasons--such as different upbringing than our own, or different brain wiring.

3. Try to learn where differences are a matter of choice and where they are not. Religion is clearly choice. Biology rarely is, although some aspects of our biology can be overcome by learning (such as the biological trait of hating people who are different).

4. Learn some morals. Foremost among these should be: seek to do what will bring the greatest good to the greatest numbers. If a particular policy enables a minority group to live with respect and in accord with constitutional rights, but has no effect on anyone else, go with it.

5. Try to figure out what's really behind the things you don't like. This is the most difficult, because it's pretty common that the real reasons that things happen the way they do turn out not to be the reasons we imagined them to be. This is probably the main difference between scientists and normal people. In science, we live a daily life of seeking reasons that things work the way they do, and usually finding that what we expected was wrong. We get used to having our ideas smashed by the real world. Non-scientist Christians (the majority of the US) probably don't have this dubious luxury. It's human nature to think that the world works the way you think it should, and to develop Certainty that you understand the origins of the abnormalities. Try pretending that you actually have no idea, and try to develop an understanding from scratch. It can be very enlightening.

Homosexuality like pederasty, should not be promoted with tax dollars.

I think we all agree on this. The difference seems to be that what some of us recognize (from the data that have been collected) that certain educational methods actually decrease the frequency of teen sex. Nothing has an impact on homosexuality. If you're born that way, well, there you are. If you're not, you can't "catch gay." Simply being told that some people are like this, and it's OK to talk to them and accept them as fellow humans, doesn't make you become gay yourself. If pederasty is similar, then you're not going to make people become pederasts by having sex education classes. Nor will teaching Christian Morals prevent people who were born with this condition from expressing it as they pass puberty. For this, we need to be vigilant in order to protect children from attack. Your stance, it seems to me, is to equate all educational efforts with promotion of homosexuality and pederasty, no matter how successful they really are at reducing the very things you want to reduce.

I assert my right to the First Amendment as an American is just as valuable as a promiscuios sexual deviant.

I and the ACLU will fight to the death to protect your right. But you do not have a right to persecute others who do not think the way you do.

Promiscuity is the foundation of the homosexual culture. I have the right to challenge them as I do MTV. Especially within the education setting. There is nothing decent about normalising homosexuality. It is more recruitment than education.

I suspect that you know less of homosexual culture than you believe you do. You are right that promiscuity has been common. I suspect that it's prevalence is a direct result of our Christian culture, which has forced homosexuals to find encounters under conditions that others of us would find abominable. I don't think that this is because homosexuality automatically causes promiscuity; after all, heterosexuality also has its share of promiscuous miscreants.

But, promiscuity has problems, not the least of which is the spread of STDs including AIDS. Suppose we sat down and brainstormed a bit, searching for a way to eliminate this homosexual promiscuity. What might we come up with? We might think that a good way would be to stop beating up gays, and allow them to enter into stable relationships. We might even think that it would help to give them the possibility of making a legal commitment to each other. This would cut down dramatically on the promiscuity, and might even make homosexuality totally uninteresting. Of course, this seems like a description of gay marriage, or civil unions...and you're dead-set against it, despite the beneficial effects it will have on the very issues that concern you.

I live in California. There is nothing more enlightened in Californians than Sodomites or Romans that caused their own demise by the exact same reasons. California's "progressives" are borderline insane. The state is morally and financially bankrupt. Typical of Liberalism. Hedonism at any cost kills a free society.

No one will argue that there were not excesses in Rome. But that's not what caused Rome to succumb to the invasions of their neighbors. That was, in large part, a consequence of being weakened by extending their population beyond what their local ecology could support.

We are entering a period now in which our population is expanding beyond what our ecology can support, but this time it's the global ecology. We have a couple of choices here. We could go on bickering about sex, awaiting the day that god will spirit us away. Or, we could actually wake up and pay attention to those nasty liberals, who are largely the ones who are trying to find out what the real problems are, and how to solve them. You know--they made fun of the Democrats at the last convention because so many of them drove hybrid cars. Dang. Suddenly the price of gas has gone "way up." All those nasty hybrids are sold months before they are even built.

But it's pretty clear that we won't make the right choices. We'll bicker about global warming even as hurricane after hurricane trashes our primary oil-import center. There's an intelligent design: put the stuff in the most vulnerable spot in the country, and whatever you do, don't build a backup. We'll bicker about teaching creationism in the schools, and about sex education, all the while watering down science teaching until no one knows anything except "god did it."

Why should I be forced to endure the beliefs of others paid for by my taxes?

Should any of us? Should I be forced to endure the beliefs of others paid for by my taxes? I think you'd get pretty universal agreement that we shouldn't force beliefs on anyone. So, what do we do when we have people with different beliefs? We can fight until one of 'em comes out on top (the Taliban way, and what seems to be the goal of what some refer to as the Christian Taliban), or we can agree that belief systems like religions are private, and beyond the purview of the State. We can search for a "way of knowing" that is wholly independent of belief, but that simply provides information. Then we can use that information to determine the policies that will do the most good for the most people. Unfortunately, that neutral "way of knowing" is science. Conservatives hate it because, all too often, it reveals that their ideology is wrong.

[AlAyeti]

I certainly do not fear science. I became a Christian because of it. That I cannot contain my humor at those that will not see the truth in the Bible is a weakness. But my abrasive presentation has brought much comfort to the people that have been denigrated by the insulting elitists leftist. The same people that do not see their own sickness while tormenting fine people who made the right choices.

I point out that there is a train coming down the tracks to the Christians partying with the ignorant pompous hedonists on the tracks. There is no common ground with an elitist and reality.

You seem to think that there is a common decency in sexual deviants. I have lived in the inner city. East LA. I haved lived in Hollywood, West Hollywood. I know well about the things I comment on.

Speak for yourself about the lack of knowledge you have about the inner-city. I have also lived at the poverty line. And below it. I raised myself by choosing the right thing to do. Not looking for excuses from natural selection or libera;ism giving me excuses for my lot in life.

What makes a poor man father a child by five different women? The poor are not noble just because they are poor. I know many noble rich people. The ones that are forced to pay for whores (I'm sorry Ho's) and "players" to live lives unchallenged.

Shi--ing all over the Super Dome was the sign of lowlives not downtrodden masses.

Religion is something I no longer find of any worth. Too many salesmen peddling snakeoil. Jesus has come into sharp relief for me. Mainly becuase the false leaders paint over the original and it is so easy to see the original through the cheap paint. But then again, it takes effort to look. Something lacking in so many Americans now.

Yes, miscraents will always abound, but we do not have to celebrate their lifestyles!!!

My sex education would be - as has been pointed out loudly on this thread - would be very accurate. My ideal is facts and accuracy. Not political correctness.

There is and are "fundamental morals." Don't we always hear this from the left? The same people that legalized abortion for convenience. Legalizing first degree murder without a care. I can never vote for a Democrat.

I absolutely am non-violent. But allowing homosexuals to promote their lifestyles as normal, defies observable evidences, that they want to find "Questioning Youth" to spread it. I will never see the homosexual agenda as anything but recruitment. I have lived in the city.

You secularists run our country and always have. I suspect that you will either have to empty the prisons and put us Christians in the vacated cells, or deal with our views that homosexuals are promiscuos, cruising and licentious sexual predators, that we can never trust.

Children are seen by Christians as having the right to grow up through their child years as children. Not sex objects.

Very ungay view. Even Sappho doesn't make the grade about her love of young women. But there is really no difference between homosexuals and the world of sexual deviants. The young are the targets.

Jesus makes it clear about the condition of childhood.

If you want to know the heart of a Christian, it is that sole issue.

You chuckle about my use of hyperbole, but there are laws about speaking out against the nasty nature of homosexuality.

Laugh all you want to. But you license its spread by your willing ignorance to not see in the numbers of new homosexuals a mismatch of logic. Immorality and sexual promiscuity is definately something you catch! Now, lesbianism is a fad.

Your opinion of there not being a "single right religion," is a statement based on prejudice. Your secularism has become the dominant religion, trumping all others. You see through only one color glasses, no different than a Taliban soldier. I, on the other hand, am a traitor of relativistic humanism. My old religion.

I hope you truly believe that we should all live side by side. You will then "tolerate" my lifestyle choice. I can then live free from having to be forced to hear about others who want me to know about their sex lives defining their culture and community.

I have shown proof of the Homosexual Agenda, it is of course forced on society. But, you will not agree with my evidence. If "Questioning Youth" tacked onto the homosexual self-definition than I don't know what else can be done.

I have challenged it and them on radio ddebate and will challenge the homosexualization of this society every chance I get.

The history of Pederasty and homosexuality is seen by enough people as a threat to America by the facts. I take solace in that.

The schools certainly are not doing what they should. Otherwise there would not be homosexual recruitment in schools. The Agenda knows what it is doing and why. Anyone that defines themselves by their sex acts has a problem. But, you won't see that. Now they boldly declare that "Questioning Youth" are part of "them" and their cause (agenda)!

If that isn't blatant recruitment, I and the millions of parents that can see what's up and are taking action against it, have little hope for the future of America. There is a difference with tolerance and complicity.

Children have already been shattered by the sexual revolution that unleashed fatherless children on society. Children raised by homosexuals will be even more ridiculous. The data coming in is as tainted as German propaganda on Hitler.

How did this come about? By DENYING GOD'S CREATION!

Absolutely part of the Agenda.

You have five interesting points.

I have endeavored to find out what lies behind the veneer of beliefs.

For instance, Christian scientists are belittled and devalued by non and anti-Christian scientists.

I have found out that there is right and there is wrong. It really isn't difficult to see. Just to follow.












[/b]

[AlAyeti]

Even if we venture away from science, and into the realm of philosophy, your argument is still wrong. It sounds like you're saying, "people should only do whatever the majority of the population is biologically predisposed to doing". In this case, electricity, powered flight, and shoes are all unnatural and immoral.

///

Philosophers would condemn the wholesale normalization of sexual deviance. Aristotle comes to mind. John Locke comes to mind.

Rather respected philosophers I assert.

"Electricty, powered flight, and shoes," are very dangerous things. All, are regulated by society and indeed the law.

Society defines what the normal healthy use of all thrre things ARE, and how the can hurt society if allowed to be used in excess. Or, misdefined or "labeled wrong."

Ever met a shoe salesman that sold you bad shoes? Ever seen the little UL on ALL electrical products? Ever heard of the FAA. Violating the sensibility of two of your examples can and will get you killed. Buy bad shoes and you will suffer the consequences as well.

Ever heard of a child molester or serial killer that wasn't a quiet and nice person? "Lived next yo 'em for years. I would have never guessed . . ."

I welcome further comparisons of observable things.

Nothing is more exciting than using facts.

Now, Christians may be forced to live in a society where our "Liberal legislators" legalize a relabeled definition of family and marriage," but suffering will not be expunged. Bad choices always bring bad consequences.

Christians should still fight for right and wrong through their votes. Complicity in wrong-doing, is not an option.

Like running a marathon in bad shoes, Christians and other decent minded people, can change, and at least not follow others willing to stumble along not wanting to see what is right.

Right now, the majority holds sway in America. But the cancer of relativism and liberal-secularism is spreading like a VD.

An appropriate analogy I might add.