Montana GOP policy: Make homosexuality illegal

reply to post by maybereal11


Coupling my minority rights with an attempt to create an entirely new voting base isn't what I had in mind. Making my rights dependant on America's views on illegal aliens only re-enforces the notion that my rights aren't inherent. I'm all for everyone being treated fairly, but my rights shouldn't be granted along with amnesty. My demand for equality should stand on it's own.

Originally posted by 23refugee
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Coupling my minority rights with an attempt to create an entirely new voting base isn't what I had in mind.

Hell...do you think that no one in the Republican Lincoln Administration wasn't thinking about that new voting base when he emancipated the slaves??? Now THAT was a new voting base.

Great deeds are not done with absolutely "pure" motives....because we as human beings are not "pure" in our virtues. Just life...If you are waiting for perfection, you will wait an eternity.

reply to post by maybereal11


I wasn't looking for perfection. I was, however, hoping for a plan other than combining my issue with the hot button issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants to highlight the bigotry of the opposing party just before an election cycle.
From which oppressed group did Lincoln require a sacrifice so that slaves might go free? What minority's struggle was entwined with that of the slaves. Lincoln may have created new voters, but he didn't rob Peter to pay Paul while doing it.

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by UmbraSumus

 

Do you feel that way about a Child and a Molestor?

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by UmbraSumus

 

lol I was being sarcastic..

Sarcastic ...........

Were you being sarcastic when you stated "Most straight males just don't like gays. " ?

=================================================================================


Sarcasm :
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

Originally posted by 23refugee
reply to post by maybereal11

 

From which oppressed group did Lincoln require a sacrifice so that slaves might go free? What minority's struggle was entwined with that of the slaves.

That's an easy one....Women...any other questions?

www.archives.gov...

He robed "elizabeth" to pay Paul.

reply to post by maybereal11


Touché. Two wrongs still don't make a right.
Now I'd like to get back to starring you in that other thread. You don't have anything to say to that military junta guy.? I'm confident you'll come up with an on topic response

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


The first amendment clause is there to guarantee the freedom to practice religion and to guarantee that the government is not allowed to interfere with that process. However the founding fathers believed that religion was absolutely essential to a functioning republic as the quotes from John Adams and others reveal.

However I'm making my argument with regards to regulating "sin", from a largely secular viewpoint. Some of these practices are harmful to society. Homosexuality happens to fall within the harmful status. All you have to do to see that is observe all of the social problems that are associated with it. Things like STDs, high suicide rates, high domestic violence rates, shortened lifespans etc.

Some of these other "sins", such as adultery and divorce actually probably have worse societal consequences. It makes sense therefore to consider restrictions on their practice, or at least discourage them in some way.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

 

Some of these practices are harmful to society. Homosexuality happens to fall within the harmful status. All you have to do to see that is observe all of the social problems that are associated with it. Things like STDs, high suicide rates, high domestic violence rates, shortened lifespans etc.

Could you please provide some source material to back up these claims??? Studies that prove that these things occur in a higher precentage in gay population than in the non-gay population???

And you are wrong about the First Amendment. It protects Atheists and non-Christians as well. It is both the freedom OF religion and the freedom FROM religion. This one Amendment solidifies the Secularity of this Nation. Even the Pledge of Allegience did not contain the words "under God" until the McCarthy Era when the fear of the Communists became so prevalent. Also, for every John Adams quote you can bring forth in favor of Christianity, I can bring a Thomas Jefferson quote against....

reply to post by SevenThunders

It makes sense therefore to consider restrictions on their practice, or at least discourage them in some way.

When was the last time you allowed someone to put unnatural "restrictions" on your life without a fight or at least demand a reasonable explanation? What you are proposing would certainly be unnatural to the persons affected.

Sex is fundamental. There have been prostitutes since there has been time. You are not going to arbitrarily stop that behaviour, or homosexuality, or adultery on a whim. Its been tried since the beginning of time as well, and has not worked. What you are suggesting is impossible.

If you want to, go ahead and attempt to have a rational discussion about the risks of certain behaviours, and maybe you will convince some indiviuals to alter their behaviour, but forget about trying to impose restrictions.

That just won't work.