It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Northwarden
I'm a fond student of natural philosophy, so your words are not wasted, but the end virtues which you speak can be obtained under any workable government system which doesn't ignore basic human rights. To plug anarchy above all, and as the most desirable system than any in existance, sounds very near-sighted to me. What about a Libertarian government or variant, a healthy republic, a benevolent ascendacy (where it's headed) or a true theocracy under God?......
.....I immediately disagree that you can draw that I'm "willing to strip rights from people" because I mention something about anarchy likely terminating in violence. That's like saying the fisherman is responsible for the weight of his catch.........
......On that possibility, if you don't have any central or overseeing government, then you will lose out on many vast macro-benefits that a state-facilitated rulership offers by way of cost-effectiveness, organization and tracking, logistics, trade-based funding, emergency preparedness, and so forth that might not be accessable unless society proved itself capable of organizing itself with respect and reaching across it's many borders to embrace the growing community prescences. Centralized government will be reborn again, I predict, because we have learned the lessons of the ancient Greeks that point out the multiple vulnerabilities of the city states. I think it's against humanities fulfillment ideals to not strive for some form of utopia, that has its own cultures held intact, and secure. If it concerns any that I mention "state-facilitated", I mean nothing beyond the definition to avoid the emotional implications.
So what you are saying is because I don't have the same religious values you have I also have no virtue? Or are you saying that a gay person, even one that is a practising Christian has no virtue by the very nature they are gay?
And you are the one sounding all worked up, not me. No, being angry with someone over them being gay is not immediately hate. It clearly constitutes defiance, and one element of defiance is a lack of tolerance for an abscence of virtues.....
If I blend patience and understanding with an unending defiance towards the lack of virtue I perceive, and at long length consider - not the sour definitions of a worty propaganda scheme aimed at a lame-duck mediocrity, a homogenization of terms both good and evil cunningly twisted together - then I can definately nail a few points the other side and and come out smiling. Not smiling because I like insulting people, but pleased that the issue got brought up again, and it wasn't so bandwagon a soapbox to stand out once a few keen points about "the gay agenda" get pointed out. The only ones who make it obnoxious are those who jump on the hate trail themselves, and start the retardation of labels, once again. Gay agenda is character assassination, to slay the image of those who contest the least of it's contentious points. Why so touchy?
At least have the decency to equate one dislike with another dislike. I don't know too many people who are against life, liberty, and property ownership. I think solid working ethics and inner form integrity, captured in any decent, survivable form, is the way to earn those God-given rights, from Him. To me, that's better than any politically correct notion there is!
Originally posted by bestintentions
because marriages are not safe and orderly - quite the opposite - things turn out to be a chaos - which then is termed erroneously 'anarchy'
Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by Northwarden
What are you saying...do you personally feel threated by gay marriage? I know why though and I can guess it goes hand in hand with studies that show homophobic men are more aroused by gay porn. There's a lot of self-hate out there.
Originally posted by AngryOne
One cannot choose their orientation and there are obviously much more pressing issues at hand than homosexuality. However, people simply MUST learn that things like these are to be kept to oneself. Children should not be exposed to deviancy. Imho, queers indeed have no business raising children.
Originally posted by AngryOne
One cannot choose their orientation and there are obviously much more pressing issues at hand than homosexuality. However, people simply MUST learn that things like these are to be kept to oneself. Children should not be exposed to deviancy. Imho, queers indeed have no business raising children.
Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by Northwarden
What are you saying...do you personally feel threated by gay marriage? I know why though and I can guess it goes hand in hand with studies that show homophobic men are more aroused by gay porn. There's a lot of self-hate out there.
ARGH, not this again. Seriously, do you really believe that? I mean, do you also believe that those who detest pedophiles are, in fact, secretly pedophiles themselves? Hmmmm...........
Originally posted by AngryOne
Firstly, "queer" isn't much of an insult; it just means "odd".
And understand that I do not particularly dislike queers. I just insist that sexuality - especially sexual deviancy - must be kept in the closet and away from the young ones. That's all.