Liberals Project Indecisive Morality

[Jedi Knight]

I have been working on a new political theory for the past few months and wanted to get a debate going on how liberals project indecisive morality.

What sort of gained momentum for this theory I have is the recent attacks by the homosexual lobby on the Republican Senator who compared their sexual behavior to incest, bigamy and other non-mainstream behaviors.

What I think this is all the cause of, and I am sure everyone interested will let me know what their opinion is either way, is that liberals project indecisive morality. When it comes to morals liberals are indecisive on what is culturally moral and what is not culturally moral.

Now, if you were to take a bunch of Christians or folks on the right-wing and throw them into a room and ask them questions about morality, it is relatively certain that the moral questions that you ask them will be answered with a grounding in the Ten Commandments in the Christian bible. So just because Christians are thinking about the Ten Commandments as they churn away moral questions deep inside their brains means that they are not morally indecisive (although as humans they can stray as humans do at times).

Liberals on the other hand (leftists, etc), have a distaste for the bible because parts of their constituency is at odds with it. In the bible for example, there are statements in there that homosexuality is a bad thing, etc, but I am not a bible expert so I can't quote them. So right there the liberal camp sort of draws a line in the sand and is forced to dismiss the bible because it disagrees with a large chunk of the liberal constituency's actions and beliefs.

This is an interesting trend too. Take abortion. If you ask a Christian what their view on abortion is, they ponder the Ten Commandments to "Thou shalt not kill". The liberal doesn't even think of the bible and thinks more of the American throw-away society and victimhood mistake logic: "Gosh Sally, you are pregnant? No problem, it's just a mistake and let's get that non-being vacuumed out of you Monday at 9AM."

What my theory proposes is that the liberals, totally embraced by indecisive morality, can only advance agendas even more outrageous than those already presented to the populations for consumption. Liberals have thrown abortion into the ring, homosexuality, no-fault divorce, matriarchal cultural terror, etc etc, and I can only ponder, according to my new theory, what the liberals will throw at us next.

With the right-wing, there is moral decisiveness there. Sure the right-wing disagrees with abortion and many disagree with homosexual behavior, but right-wing behavior is really predictable. You can safely judge a person on the right-wing in advance because they will go to the bible and look up the Ten Commandments first before they shock society.

Liberals have no such moral decisiveness. That is why as I think of the future I think the next thing liberals will do is legalize pedophilia (sex with children), abolishment of all religion (the complete humanism of all political ideology), the elimination of male reproductive freedom (all reproduction in females will eventually be inside laboratories) and complete removal from society of all things that penetrate (feminist fear of penetration).

I mean, what else can liberals do for mankind? What else can we really be shocked with? What else is there for liberals to advance as an agenda? They have already hacked society to pieces pretty much since the 1960s--what else is on the future liberal (leftist) agenda?

JK

[Gem]

I don't know much about liberals in general, but I think you are confusing Indecisiveness with diversity in liberalism. What I'm trying to say is that some liberals are not pro choice and support sodomy laws, and so forth.

The liberal side is fragmented now adays (thanks to republican president + house of rep control), and pretty much leaderless. With those circumstances, I think it's quite likely that liberals are confused.

However, I'm sure everyone of them as some sorts of morals/ethics that they follow.

"Gosh Sally, you are pregnant? No problem, it's just a mistake and let's get that non-being vacuumed out of you Monday at 9AM."

I don't think they're all like that. After all, the woman HAS to agree (and I bet they don't like it very much)

That is why as I think of the future I think the next thing liberals will do is legalize pedophilia (sex with children), abolishment of all religion (the complete humanism of all political ideology), the elimination of male reproductive freedom (all reproduction in females will eventually be inside laboratories) and complete removal from society of all things that penetrate (feminist fear of penetration).

Probably not in the forseeable future. I mean they already have a hard job with gay rights and abortion that these things will be just met with overwhelming opposition.

I'm surprised at you JK, a moderate thread? No FrontPageMag.com link?

I sense your slowly turning to the dark side (leftist) :D

Gem

[chulbert]

When it comes to morals liberals are indecisive on what is culturally moral and what is not culturally moral.

Because one shoe size doesn't fit all.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Now, if you were to take a bunch of Christians or folks on the right-wing and throw them into a room and ask them questions about morality, it is relatively certain that the moral questions that you ask them will be answered with a grounding in the Ten Commandments in the Christian bible. So just because Christians are thinking about the Ten Commandments as they churn away moral questions deep inside their brains means that they are not morally indecisive (although as humans they can stray as humans do at times).


Good, I was afraid someone might try to pinch my ass.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by chulbert


Because one shoe size doesn't fit all.

This is a topic about right and wrong/moral and immoral. What you have said: "Because one shoe size doesn't fit all." is precisely the point that I am making.

Can anyone do whatever it is that they want? Is that America? Just because there are "laws" written in a Christian bible, do people dismiss them because they don't like "the other political party?"

Hey, if liberals are saying to do anything they want because everyone's shoes are different, hell, what is to stop a guy from having ten wives?

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
I don't know much about liberals in general, but I think you are confusing Indecisiveness with diversity in liberalism.

Diversity in liberalism? What the hell does that mean? Is anything that liberals indecisively throw out in culture as a cultural norm to be respected for "diversity"? That is hilarious.

What if you saw some 50 year old guy bending over some ten year old girl at a bus stop and he said: "My shoe size is different and this is liberal diversity."

When does it end? I want to know what is next on the liberal agenda. You know that homosexuality isn't the end of it. When the feminazis were marching on the USSC's steps in Washington in militancy to get abortion legalized in '73, liberal thinkers said that that would probably be the "end of it".

But wow, come 1992 all of a sudden homosexuality is supposed to be an "enlightened" behavior respected for "diversity" as if some omnipotent God dropped out of the sky and ordered it.

So what is next--pedophilia? (legalphilia after it is passed off as "diversity" by liberals because people's shoe sizes are different), bigamy (no way, liberals wouldn't probably approve of that because there is masculinity involved), euthanasia (the old just have to go so that is probably a new liberal bee-line for the future), etc etc.

Answer the question--what is next?

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Good, I was afraid someone might try to pinch my ass.

You would have to move Arafat out of the way first.

JK

[Ladewig]

Now, if you were to take a bunch of Christians or folks on the right-wing and throw them into a room and ask them questions about morality, it is relatively certain that the moral questions that you ask them will be answered with a grounding in the Ten Commandments in the Christian bible.

The Ten Commandments require that children who dishonor their parents to be stoned. Can you provide the name of any senator, representative, governor, or president who believes/believed in this type of capital punishment?

The T.C. require that the harvest of every seventh year be given in its entirety to the poor (Ex 23:10-11). The Bible also tells us to not charge interest on money that is lent out and to forgive all debts every seven years.

It is not only us leftist who practice moral relativism - the religious right also picks and chooses from the list of Absolutes.

As for the rest of the post, you're chucking, JK. I recommend fewer and better posts.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Diversity in liberalism? What the hell does that mean? Is anything that liberals indecisively throw out in culture as a cultural norm to be respected for "diversity"? That is hilarious.

What if you saw some 50 year old guy bending over some ten year old girl at a bus stop and he said: "My shoe size is different and this is liberal diversity."

When does it end? I want to know what is next on the liberal agenda. You know that homosexuality isn't the end of it. When the feminazis were marching on the USSC's steps in Washington in militancy to get abortion legalized in '73, liberal thinkers said that that would probably be the "end of it".

But wow, come 1992 all of a sudden homosexuality is supposed to be an "enlightened" behavior respected for "diversity" as if some omnipotent God dropped out of the sky and ordered it.

So what is next--pedophilia? (legalphilia after it is passed off as "diversity" by liberals because people's shoe sizes are different), bigamy (no way, liberals wouldn't probably approve of that because there is masculinity involved), euthanasia (the old just have to go so that is probably a new liberal bee-line for the future), etc etc.

Answer the question--what is next?

JK

hmmm... I vote for euthanasia. It would make the perfect kind of nonsense. We want peace, now! No more killing! Oh, by the way it's very enlightened of you to kill yourself so as not to be a drain on my health insurance dollars.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
but right-wing behavior is really predictable. You can safely judge a person on the right-wing in advance because they will go to the bible and look up the Ten Commandments first before they shock society.


Iduno, "right wingers" are unpredictable. Sometimes they eat their own, sometimes they circle the wagons. Sometimes they vote Republican, other times they'll vote for libertarians or other smaller parties. Sometimes they even vote democrat.

The are only as predictable in the ethical sense so far as their interpretation of the bible goes.

Is third trimester abortion wrong?
->yes
Why?
->thou shalt not kill
Is capital punishment wrong?
->No

I guess there is a big difference between you catholic right winger and your protestant right winger. They may be predictable in their own way but the group as a whole is not.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ladewig


The Ten Commandments require that children who dishonor their parents to be stoned.

Really? Which of the Ten Commandments says that? I never heard that before.

Moving beyond your comments about Christians, who defines what is "right" and what is "wrong" in society? Do "people" who belong to a "group" espousing a "behavior" that in 2,000 years of recorded history have not been allowed legal and moral justification suddenly say the "shoe doesn't fit" and call themselves icons of "diversity"?

Answer the question--when will it end and what is the next shocker that will be dropped by liberals on what is left of our society?

Let me guess--pedophilia will be the next omnipotent "diversity" announcement and society will just have to suck it up and accept it like it is some type of civil right or something.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

All I have learned so far is that if we call something "diversity" then it is "cool and fashionable". That doesn't tell me why it is right and moral.

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Hey, if liberals are saying to do anything they want because everyone's shoes are different, hell, what is to stop a guy from having ten wives?

JK But we can, Jedi, we can!

What's to stop me from having ten 'wives' living in my house, sleeping in my bed? Are we not free to sleep (and have sex) with whoever we fancy, even if it should be more than one at a time? Am I not free to let them all stay in my house for as long as we want? Are they not free to do the dishes? :p

who defines what is "right" and what is "wrong" in society? The Bible? Each one of us? You? :confused:

[MRC_Hans]

Let me guess--pedophilia will be the next omnipotent "diversity" announcement and society will just have to suck it up and accept it like it is some type of civil right or something.

JK Nah, you're a bit off. Actually, the next point on our liberal agenda is a ban on males having guns. Pedophilia is not scheduled till around 2005, as we need to silence a few silly dissidents first.

Hans :rolleyes:

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I have been working on a new political theory

Sorry JK, I near sh*t myself laughing....a NEW political theory?? The "leftists" are evil and to be blamed for all the worlds problems? whats new about that? Every one of your threads says the same thing.

Anyway...I'm not a Christian so I'm just off to eat my children....catch you later.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
All I have learned so far is that if we call something "diversity" then it is "cool and fashionable". That doesn't tell me why it is right and moral.

JK
Can't you figure out what is right and moral for yourself? If the catholic church came out and said god had spoken to the pope and to get all those priests off the hook sodomy of choirboys was now considered moral, would you say...ok, get me one?? see my sig......

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
All I have learned so far is that if we call something "diversity" then it is "cool and fashionable". That doesn't tell me why it is right and moral.

JK

Even in Christianity, "right" and "moral" are artifacts of intelligence. For Christians God says what is right and wrong and it can change from situation to situation. For the atheists its more complicated and at the same time simpler. We don't submit to a unified moral authority, which leads to conflict even amongst us liberals. But we also try to legislate as little morality as possible. We don't generally make moral laws prohibiting things that involve consenting afults. We don't forbid liquor or call pigs unclean, we don't require or prevent anyone from worshiping, we remain uninvolved in others sexual pecidillios even when we find them dirty or disgusting. We recognize that there is more than one "right" way to live and that you should be left to find or fail to find that way for yourself.

[Supercharts]

There seems to be a growing reluctance to make a clear distinction between what is good and what is bad. Somewhere in the 60’s sociologists discovered the ‘gray’ area. The ‘area’ was a refuge for those who did not want responsibility for their actions or thoughts.
Making a decision on moral principles (regardless of one’s basis for morality) was seen as anti-intellectual and racist. (Recall the rise of multiculturalism).
We are now a society without fundamental definitions of right and wrong. To express an opinion in a clear defensible way is seen as extremist. Faith Popcorn said 20 years ago that modern society is cocooning and isolatory in that people do not want to face any conflict with their core beliefs. We have become a nation of pansies. The exception is used to negate any moral stand or decision between what is right and what is wrong.

[hammegk]

Well, we are beginning to pull together on some things. A current news item headline should be

"Gays join conservative Christians in criticizing bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery."

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Supercharts
There seems to be a growing reluctance to make a clear distinction between what is good and what is bad. Somewhere in the 60’s sociologists discovered the ‘gray’ area. The ‘area’ was a refuge for those who did not want responsibility for their actions or thoughts.
Making a decision on moral principles (regardless of one’s basis for morality) was seen as anti-intellectual and racist. (Recall the rise of multiculturalism).
Let me get this straight. The ability to see other points of view and understand, if not accept, different views of morality is a bad thing? I guess you're right. It's been AGES since I went to a good stoning.

[DavidJames]

"There seems to be a growing reluctance to make a clear distinction between what is good and what is bad. Somewhere in the 60’s sociologists discovered the ‘gray’ area."

When I read those first two sentences, I think what is really being said is this.

There seems to be a growing reluctance to agree with what I believe is good and what is bad. Somewhere in the 60’s people began to disagree with me and suggest I am wrong.

"We are now a society without fundamental definitions of right and wrong"
No, we are a society made up of people who disagree on the definitions.

Of course it's much easier to craft an argument the way you've stated it. Much easier to argue for morality against no morality than argue your definition versus someone else's.

[Supercharts]

Valid points.

[Thanz]

Jedi -

You seem to be confusing "predictability" with "good". I can predict that Muslim extremists will see that suicide attacks on Israel or the "Great Satan" US are morally good. Does that make them more moral?

You are also confusing moral decisions that you disagree with to be "indecisive" rather than simply decisive in a way you don't like. While I disagree with your "leftist" blather, I don't think that you are going to find many (if any) liberals on the left who want to revoke pedophilia laws. Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. The laws are there to protect children, not because we want to limit adult behaviour.

Many other people have pointed out the problem with relying on the one passage in the bible against homosexuality, when other similar passages (like mixing weaves of different cloths) are completely ignored. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality, just as there is nothing immoral about heterosexuality.

You seem to know how "leftists" feel on any number of issues - how exactly are they indecisive? Just because you disagree with the decisions does not mean the decisions are not made.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Thanz
Jedi -

You seem to be confusing "predictability" with "good". I can predict that Muslim extremists will see that suicide attacks on Israel or the "Great Satan" US are morally good. Does that make them more moral?

You are also confusing moral decisions that you disagree with to be "indecisive" rather than simply decisive in a way you don't like. While I disagree with your "leftist" blather, I don't think that you are going to find many (if any) liberals on the left who want to revoke pedophilia laws. Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. The laws are there to protect children, not because we want to limit adult behaviour.

Many other people have pointed out the problem with relying on the one passage in the bible against homosexuality, when other similar passages (like mixing weaves of different cloths) are completely ignored. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality, just as there is nothing immoral about heterosexuality.

You seem to know how "leftists" feel on any number of issues - how exactly are they indecisive? Just because you disagree with the decisions does not mean the decisions are not made.

How can you say that pedophilia is reprehensible--pedophiles don't think it is--I am sure that many Americans felt homosexuality was reprehensible until it suddenly became a civil right without debate.

That is the point of this topic--no matter what you or I find reprehensible, all it takes in this country for a behavior to be a "diversity-enabled civil right" is to form a group, throw oodles of money at politicians and buy legitimacy.

Then all you have to do is say your agenda is a civil right (anything non-right wing) and then it becomes a protected behavior worthy of civil rights protection (protection by SWAT Teams, the FBI, etc etc etc).

Think about what I am saying here. Less than ten years ago, homosexuality was a condition in the United States where there was no consensus. In fact, I still do not believe there is a consensus on homsexuality in the United States, even today. The same can be said for abortion and the abortion agenda as illustrated by the radical left. There is not a consensus on that either.

But somewhere along the way these behaviors become "civil rights" and I can't recall ever voting for them. How can something be a federally protected right if "the people" don't form a consensus about it?

What I think needs to happen is new behaviors pushed on society as something "enlightening" and "diverse" and a "civil right", first needs to meet the 2/3rds test like any other amendment to the United States Constitution. If it doesn't meet the 2/3rds test, then that means there is no consensus on it in the United States and it is exposed as being a behavior, or an idea that is not something worthy of the "diversity" definition and naturally would never be a "civil right".

When you do not have consensus from a population about a new behavior and you push it on "the people" anyway, that is totalitarianism. Naturally in this country's case it is matriarchal totalitarianism.

JK

[Dancing David]

Thank You JK for yet another enlightening post, gosh me sides hurt from laughing so hard.

By the way this just seems to prove my theory that you are a double agent trying to help the Matriarchal Vision Society by spewing nonsense in the name of conservatism. Keep up the good work Tvarish!

So is the point that saying maybe homesexuality isn't a sin leads to pedophilia. Or that abortion leads to pedophilia. I think you have valid points it is just hard to sort them out from the drek.(Maybe you use the word pedohilia a lot, another thing the bible doesn't even condem)

There has been considerable discussion in the philosphy folder about not needing religion to have morals.

By the way, if you ever get married, will you make your wife live in a hut while she has her menses? The bible says that too.

Peace
Dancind David

[Gem]

matriarchal totalitarianism

Funny, I was under the impression that there were very few women in congress (even with Clinton).

And there IS a big difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. The first involves consent, but the second one doesn't. Can a six year old understand what sex is? We could make a law that says pedophilia is "rape" but homosexuality isn't. Who is going to argue that rape is not bad?

And one thing I think about morals is this:
Look back ages ago, and in different cultures around the world. There are many, many differences with morality. How is one better than the other? How do we measure whether one is evil and the other isn't? By a book? An authority figure? Majority vote (imagine that!)? Wouldn't tolerance be a good attribute to have if we have to live with people with different morals?

There are some things we can't tolerate, like rape and pedophilia. Not because it's evil but because it's disruptive. Homosexuality, right or wrong, does not cause any harm to the people experiencing it. Pedophilia does.

Drinking alcohol (in excess) is a problem in America. Car accidents, abuse of spouse and children. Would you outlaw drinking on the grounds to save lives? Morality? What about those thousands, if not millions of people who drink in a moderate way?
When you do not have consensus from a population about a new behavior and you push it on "the people" anyway, that is totalitarianism.
True, but are the liberals making people have gay sex? What I think they are trying to do is LETTING people have gay sex. In fact, punishing people to have gay sex is totalitarianism.

As for popular support, didn't the South overwhelmingly approve slavery as moral before the civil war? To push the liberation of slaves would have been totalirianism. Hey, they did that, didn't they? The Union forced the liberation of slavery, they were totalirianism. I'm no arguing that what the Union was bad, but that "totalirianism" is being thrown around too often that people start associating it with the wrong terms.

If it doesn't meet the 2/3rds test, then that means there is no consensus on it in the United States
Ah yes, so when the leftist dominated congress (might happen someday) accepts on a 2/3rds test that "morality Sucks (with captial S)," there is an American concensus?

Gem

P.S.: Btw, can you give me the article by freud that states the feminist are afraid of penetration? I can sure use a laugh.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


What I think needs to happen is new behaviors pushed on society as something "enlightening" and "diverse" and a "civil right", first needs to meet the 2/3rds test like any other amendment to the United States Constitution. If it doesn't meet the 2/3rds test, then that means there is no consensus on it in the United States and it is exposed as being a behavior, or an idea that is not something worthy of the "diversity" definition and naturally would never be a "civil right".
JK
So nothing is legal (or everything is illegal) until it passes your 2/3rd's majority test? Talk about Soviet-style leftist totalitarianism. Does this make any sense to anyone? What if an amendment is proposed in your mythical land of perfect morality and the amendment is to allow people to join the Catholic church and the amendment fails. Under your system, it would then be illegal to be a practicing Catholic.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Bjorn
What's to stop me from having ten 'wives' living in my house, sleeping in my bed? Are we not free to sleep (and have sex) with whoever we fancy, even if it should be more than one at a time? Damn straight Bjorn,

What people do in the privacy of their own home is their business. Sadly that is becoming trite but it is still important.

There is nothing in the constitution (oops) that would determine how many wives a man can have. Of course there is nothing in the constitution that would limit the number of husbands a woman can have either.

Forcing 14 year old girls to marry a 50 year old man under the auspices of polygamy is quite another thing (I fantasize about shooting such scum bags). Bigamy (fraud) is also another thing. But if I want 30 women who live with me and conduct themselves as my "wives" well, that is my choice.

[MRC_Hans]

But if I want 30 women who live with me and conduct themselves as my "wives" well, that is my choice. And their's, I presume? ;) :D

Hans

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Tricky

Let me get this straight. The ability to see other points of view and understand, if not accept, different views of morality is a bad thing? I guess you're right. It's been AGES since I went to a good stoning.

Tricky,

What about the area of "human rights"? There was that decleration in Helsinki in 1975 that defined what human rights were for everyone on the planet. Can we say respecting them is moral?

I am always afraid of the cultural relativist viewpoint. To use your example of stoning, there was a woman sentenced to death for fornication in Nigeria recently. Can we say that is wrong, or is that a cultural thing on which reasonable people can differ and who are we to say this is immoral?

I think of course the same arguments apply to the US or any other Western nation. I just get the feeling that ultimately not having some absolutes quickly leads to a "moral" vaccum.

[Tmy]

Which Commandment says the death penalty is OK? Sure isnt "thou shall not kill". Yet Conservatives are big on the death penalty.

We really dont legislate morality. We just pass laws to apease society and keep the masses under control.

[Ladewig]

Ladewig-
The Ten Commandments require that children who dishonor their parents to be stoned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JK-
Really? Which of the Ten Commandments says that? I never heard that before.


Exodus 21 descibes the punishments associated with the commandments. "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death (Ex 21:15) And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death(Ex 21:17)."




Moving beyond your comments about Christians, who defines what is "right" and what is "wrong" in society? Do "people" who belong to a "group" espousing a "behavior" that in 2,000 years of recorded history have not been allowed legal and moral justification suddenly say the "shoe doesn't fit" and call themselves icons of "diversity"?

Well, women are a "people" who belong to a "group" espousing "behavior" (i.e. equality such as owning land, voting in elections) that in 2000 years of recorded history has not been allowed legal and moral justification. But we wised up and decided that equality was moral. Slaves also espoused aberrant behavior when they suggested that slavery was wrong, but again, after a few thousand years, we flipped and being a slave-owner went from being completely moral (and justified by scriptures) to completely immoral.

[WMT1]

I long ago gave up the expectation of getting a straightforward, coherent response from JK on much of anything, but just to add my contribution to picking apart his absurdities ...


Originally posted by Jedi Knight
How can you say that pedophilia is reprehensible--pedophiles don't think it is--

It probably has something to do with the miraculous ability some people have of basing their own opinions on something other than someone else's opinions. (You couldn't figure this out for yourself?)


I am sure that many Americans felt homosexuality was reprehensible until it suddenly became a civil right without debate.

:rolleyes:

(If you really think there's been a lack of debate over homosexuality, that impression is probably the result of the total lack of competence demonstrated by those trying to put forth any kind of credible case against it.)


That is the point of this topic--no matter what you or I find reprehensible, all it takes in this country for a behavior to be a "diversity-enabled civil right" is to form a group, throw oodles of money at politicians and buy legitimacy.

And wouldn't you agree that none of those things should be required for people to be able make their own decisions about their own lives? :D


Then all you have to do is say your agenda is a civil right (anything non-right wing) and then it becomes a protected behavior worthy of civil rights protection (protection by SWAT Teams, the FBI, etc etc etc).

:confused: Does anybody know what the hell he's talking about here?


Less than ten years ago, homosexuality was a condition in the United States where there was no consensus. In fact, I still do not believe there is a consensus on homsexuality in the United States, even today.

What the hell difference does that make? Do you believe a consensus should be required in order for people to be able to exercise their rights?


The same can be said for abortion and the abortion agenda as illustrated by the radical left. There is not a consensus on that either.

:confused: Is there a consensus against abortion, or for the abortion agenda as illustrated by the radical right?


But somewhere along the way these behaviors become "civil rights" and I can't recall ever voting for them.

Good. I'd hate to think my freedom depended on your vote. :eek:


How can something be a federally protected right if "the people" don't form a consensus about it?

It probably has something to do with respect for individual sovereignty, and an understanding that no "consensus" should be required in order for individuals to make decisions about their own lives. I hope this helps clear up your confusion.


What I think needs to happen is new behaviors pushed on society as something "enlightening" and "diverse" and a "civil right", first needs to meet the 2/3rds test like any other amendment to the United States Constitution. If it doesn't meet the 2/3rds test, then that means there is no consensus on it in the United States and it is exposed as being a behavior, or an idea that is not something worthy of the "diversity" definition and naturally would never be a "civil right".

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif

What would we do without you to keep us entertained?


When you do not have consensus from a population about a new behavior and you push it on "the people" anyway, that is totalitarianism.

Nope. No playing fast and loose with definitions here.


Naturally in this country's case it is matriarchal totalitarianism.

:rolleyes:

[daenku32]

Liberals have no such moral decisiveness. That is why as I think of the future I think the next thing liberals will do is legalize pedophilia (sex with children), abolishment of all religion (the complete humanism of all political ideology), the elimination of male reproductive freedom (all reproduction in females will eventually be inside laboratories) and complete removal from society of all things that penetrate (feminist fear of penetration).

And you Sir, are going to torture little children.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by WMT1
What the hell difference does that make? Do you believe a consensus should be required in order for people to be able to exercise their rights?

You mean false-rights. Our "rights" are clearly listed in the US Constitution. Any other "right" is open to debate, except false-rights that liberals purvey upon unsuspecting Americans as "civil rights" when those false-rights become "cool and fashionable".

JK

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Less than ten years ago, homosexuality was a condition in the United States where there was no consensus. In fact, I still do not believe there is a consensus on homsexuality in the United States, even today.

Originally posted by WMT1
What the hell difference does that make? Do you believe a consensus should be required in order for people to be able to exercise their rights?

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
You mean false-rights.

Uh ... no, that's not what I mean. I've long been aware of your incompetence when it comes to answering a straightforward question in a straightforward manner. You don't need to further embarrass yourself by trying to tell someone what they mean by their use of a term.


Our "rights" are clearly listed in the US Constitution.

Yeah, we went through this before. For my money, you slightly edged out hammegk for the title of "most evasive poster", when I began challenging your ridiculously inconsistent ideas about rights in that discussion. It became abundantly clear to me that either you don't really believe the ******** you post, or you are a grade A nutcase.

But just to give you a chance to redeem yourself, let's revisit that question I kept asking you about Constitutional rights. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about buying a car, choosing Coke over Pepsi, watching television, or going to the store for a loaf of bread. So, to be consistent, is it your position that these are not rights, since they are not "clearly listed in the US Constitution"?

(*crickets*)



Any other "right" is open to debate, except false-rights that liberals purvey upon unsuspecting Americans as "civil rights" when those false-rights become "cool and fashionable".

Anyone who thinks I overstepped with the "nutcase" comment need only read the above statement.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by RandFan
Damn straight Bjorn,

What people do in the privacy of their own home is their business. Sadly that is becoming trite but it is still important.


It seems to only apply to homosexuals though. I find incest repulsive but if you and your sister are both of the age of consent and want to get it on, I could care less. If you want to have 14 consensual life partners, again none of my business.

However, I don't believe in "marriage" of 14 life partners or a same sex partner. I believe we should have some sort of civil union for these people. Marriage of course, would be a form of the civil union. Marriage is a cultural/religious practice after all and I don't want the government diluting the term.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by corplinx
However, I don't believe in "marriage" of 14 life partners or a same sex partner. I believe we should have some sort of civil union for these people. Marriage of course, would be a form of the civil union. Marriage is a cultural/religious practice after all and I don't want the government diluting the term.

This is a concern I've never understood. If you really have no problem with other forms of civil unions, then why do you care whether the term itself gets "diluted"? Why not just view it as an expansion of the definition?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by WMT1
Uh ... no, that's not what I mean. I've long been aware of your incompetence when it comes to answering a straightforward question in a straightforward manner. You don't need to further embarrass yourself by trying to tell someone what they mean by their use of a term.

My incompetence? Oh, so you are starting to get leftist-angry now and attack me? It is unusual, I admit, that leftists took so long to really start attacking this thread since the new theory I created is so brilliant. I guess it took a day or so for it to "sink in".

Yeah, we went through this before. For my money, you slightly edged out hammegk for the title of "most evasive poster", when I began challenging your ridiculously inconsistent ideas about rights in that discussion. It became abundantly clear to me that either you don't really believe the ******** you post, or you are a grade A nutcase.

Oh, more leftist-angry. What upsets you is how simply brilliant I am and I am an arch-conservative.

But just to give you a chance to redeem yourself, let's revisit that question I kept asking you about Constitutional rights. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about buying a car, choosing Coke over Pepsi, watching television, or going to the store for a loaf of bread. So, to be consistent, is it your position that these are not rights, since they are not "clearly listed in the US Constitution"?

Oh, that is a newbie comparison that makes no sense whatsoever. Trade is covered in the commerce clause of the US Constitution. If you weren't so leftist-angry you would have spent more time formulating some reply to my brilliant post, rather than throwing these half-baked responses out there like you have.

Anyone who thinks I overstepped with the "nutcase" comment need only read the above statement.

You don't need to explain yourself. Stalinist name-calling is all the left is good for. When brilliant men disagree with marginal leftists, they become labeled as being "nuts" or "nutcases". Look, if you think you are accomplishing anything by calling me those names, you are wrong. Do you have any idea just how many leftist-angry people on this forum have called me those names? It is straight out of the leftist debate handbook. When leftists lose debates, they resort to calling the other person some Stalinist Red-defined name to attack them. That may work with people who are attracted to listening to leftists who advocate false-rights as "civil rights", but it does nothing to impact the argument I made. It does nothing to change the absolute truth of the theory I created and its implications for the nation-state.

Go back and read a few more chapters in your leftist debate handbook and try again. Take your time next time--I am not going anywhere.

JK

[WMT1]

If there is any self-respecting skeptic out there who thinks JK has raised any points in his response to me that have any credibility, and/or warrant some kind of response, let me know, and I'll try to get to it tomorrow.

[Dancing David]

Still laughing, JK are you able to get a copy of this Stalinist name calling dictionary or cite a source, I think it would make an interesting read.
So back to your point, Christians are able to come up with a consistant 'moral standard' and this is somehow better than the relative morlas of the liberals, because they are followers of fashion.

I have a friend who is truely a moral Xian and tries to live by Xian morals, However she objects to war in it's entirity. So where does she stand in the concensus that the Iraq war is moral?

Peace
dancing David

PS You are doing a great job for the Cause , I will have to commend your efforts to the Supreme Matriarchal Commisar!

[Dancing David]

Still laughing, JK are you able to get a copy of this Stalinist name calling dictionary or cite a source, I think it would make an interesting read.
So back to your point, Christians are able to come up with a consistant 'moral standard' and this is somehow better than the relative morlas of the liberals, because they are followers of fashion.

I have a friend who is truely a moral Xian and tries to live by Xian morals, However she objects to war in it's entirity. So where does she stand in the concensus that the Iraq war is moral?

Peace
dancing David

PS You are doing a great job for the Cause , I will have to commend your efforts to the Supreme Matriarchal Commisar!

[Ladewig]

Oh my gods. I just realized that Senator Rick Santorum (R. Penn.)has hacked JK's password and is posing as JREF Forums' Jedi Knight.

CNN link showing similarity between opening post and Santorum's comments (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/22/santorum.gays/index.html)

I knew the real JK would never say such things.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
When leftists lose debates, they resort to calling the other person some Stalinist Red-defined name to attack them. And when arch-conservatives lose debates?

Bjorn, you are a jackass and I am never going to waste one keystroke on your sorry ass again. Don't even bother replying to any of my posts, you clueless newbie. You didn't even recognize the easy gravity formulas I gave you. You are an ******* poseur ... :p :D :p

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
And when arch-conservatives lose debates?

:p :D :p

I have never lost a debate.

JK

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I have never lost a debate.

JK

neither did the iraqi information minister :)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I have never lost a debate.

JK
what can I say?????:D Jedi. You normally just do a vanishing act when you reach a point where you have thrown in fabricated facts to stay afloat and are challenged on those facts.... You know the ones I'm talking about...the outrageous claims of what percentage of women have had abortions or what percentage of men are the real fathers of thier children or any number of other cases of blatant fabrication that you do just to prop up lost arguments.
This Thread for example....recycling old Franko threads that you cannot be moral unless a God forces you??? Are you running out of Ideas for threads? I'm not surprised seeing as every thread you post can be described as "Leftists are to blame for....."

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I have never lost a debate.

JK Only memory? :p

Don't tempt the forum veterans to quote some of your famous mistakes ..... :cool:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I have never lost a debate.

JK
Well, one, actually. I got you to concede that not ALL atheists cry out to God when they thought they were dying. You allowed that my experience when I had a heart attack meant that only 99.7% of atheists (or athiests as you called them back then) cried out to God when they thought they were dying . (Yeah, your math was bad then too, but it's the thought that counts.) Thanks for making me the exception, you old rascal.:D

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by RandFan
Damn straight Bjorn,

What people do in the privacy of their own home is their business. Sadly that is becoming trite but it is still important.

There is nothing in the constitution (oops) that would determine how many wives a man can have. Of course there is nothing in the constitution that would limit the number of husbands a woman can have either.

Forcing 14 year old girls to marry a 50 year old man under the auspices of polygamy is quite another thing (I fantasize about shooting such scum bags). Bigamy (fraud) is also another thing. But if I want 30 women who live with me and conduct themselves as my "wives" well, that is my choice.

Oh man... if you do obtain 30 wives, at least do yourself a favor and save the last bullet for yourself.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool

what can I say?????:D Jedi. You normally just do a vanishing act when you reach a point where you have thrown in fabricated facts to stay afloat and are challenged on those facts.... You know the ones I'm talking about...the outrageous claims of what percentage of women have had abortions or what percentage of men are the real fathers of thier children or any number of other cases of blatant fabrication that you do just to prop up lost arguments.
This Thread for example....recycling old Franko threads that you cannot be moral unless a God forces you??? Are you running out of Ideas for threads? I'm not surprised seeing as every thread you post can be described as "Leftists are to blame for....."

I never run out of ideas and information.

JK

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I never run out of ideas and information.

JK Surely not, since you produce both yourself. :rolleyes:

Hans

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I have never lost a debate.
No, you just call people "commies" and go crying to your mom.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I never run out of ideas and information.

JK

Thats right, whatever David Horowitz says, eventually you get the basic idea and print it here. Left is evil and cannot distinguish right from wrong. How long did that take?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I have never lost a debate.

JK

Apparently, he defines not losing a debate by calling others leftists, communists, liberals, fascists, chicks, femminazis, or whatever else strikes his fancy while not actually responding to the points being raised and starting new threads in order to divert attention from the issue at hand.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I never run out of ideas and information.

JK

You have never run out of incorrect ideas and information as can be seen by your ignorance of mathematics, current events, and physics.