C
- Status
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Smart guy! I’ve been saying the same for years LOL. It amazes me though how many people fall for the “equal rights” theory when in no way are the two relationships equal.
Lisa N
Lisa N
T
theTaxCollector
Guest
Lisa -
We have been saying the same things here for a long time. What amazes me is how we are left to defend what would appear to be common sense and was known for generations.
I guess evil has a way of clouding the truth.
We have been saying the same things here for a long time. What amazes me is how we are left to defend what would appear to be common sense and was known for generations.
I guess evil has a way of clouding the truth.
D
David_Paul
Guest
Edward Feser writes in Tech Central Station:
How to Mix Religion and Politics
“. . . liberal criticism of the influence of religion on politics is largely directed at a straw man in any case. In most of the areas where liberals think they see such an influence, religion plays, or need play, no essential role at all.”
“For example, the main arguments presented by opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage do not rest on religious premises.”
"Some pro-life arguments do indeed make controversial claims about the moral and metaphysical status of the fetus – just as pro-choice arguments do – but acceptance of those claims does not necessarily entail belief in God. "
"The influential arguments of Princeton University’s Robert P. George, for instance, rest only on some very plausible and modest claims about fetal biology and a few secular moral premises. "
“The arguments of Don Marquis, the author of what is probably the most widely anthologized and cited pro-life article in contemporary philosophy, assume an even less robust and controversial view of the nature of the fetus.”
“Things are no different with same-sex marriage.”
“Philosophers like Roger Scruton and Michael Levin have defended traditional sexual morality in terms of a quasi-Kantian ethics and evolutionary psychology, respectively, rather than by appeal to any religious tradition or authority . . .”
How to Mix Religion and Politics
“. . . liberal criticism of the influence of religion on politics is largely directed at a straw man in any case. In most of the areas where liberals think they see such an influence, religion plays, or need play, no essential role at all.”
“For example, the main arguments presented by opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage do not rest on religious premises.”
"Some pro-life arguments do indeed make controversial claims about the moral and metaphysical status of the fetus – just as pro-choice arguments do – but acceptance of those claims does not necessarily entail belief in God. "
"The influential arguments of Princeton University’s Robert P. George, for instance, rest only on some very plausible and modest claims about fetal biology and a few secular moral premises. "
“The arguments of Don Marquis, the author of what is probably the most widely anthologized and cited pro-life article in contemporary philosophy, assume an even less robust and controversial view of the nature of the fetus.”
“Things are no different with same-sex marriage.”
“Philosophers like Roger Scruton and Michael Levin have defended traditional sexual morality in terms of a quasi-Kantian ethics and evolutionary psychology, respectively, rather than by appeal to any religious tradition or authority . . .”
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
People who promote same-sex marriage on the basis of diversity are kooks. How much diversity is in a same-sex marriage? None, by definition.
Liberals also have to be careful because if I can marry any adult(s) then what’s to stop a rich person from marrying a widowed parents and getting around the death tax that liberals are so fond of?
Marriage is when two become one. The assembly instructions for a family state that a man shall cling on to his wife. If a marriage unit is supposed to have a left and right half, then two lefts or two rights definitely does not give you the whole unit.
I’m not talking just about sex here, but with the notion that there may be something different between men and women other than their reproductive roles. I’m not up to speed with the current liberal position on whether men and women think differently or not.
Alan
Liberals also have to be careful because if I can marry any adult(s) then what’s to stop a rich person from marrying a widowed parents and getting around the death tax that liberals are so fond of?
Marriage is when two become one. The assembly instructions for a family state that a man shall cling on to his wife. If a marriage unit is supposed to have a left and right half, then two lefts or two rights definitely does not give you the whole unit.
I’m not talking just about sex here, but with the notion that there may be something different between men and women other than their reproductive roles. I’m not up to speed with the current liberal position on whether men and women think differently or not.
Alan
B
BobCatholic
Guest
www.corporateresourcecouncil.org
This one has many great white papers. Also making a secular case against the homosexual agenda in broad terms - including “gay marriage”
This one has many great white papers. Also making a secular case against the homosexual agenda in broad terms - including “gay marriage”
A
antiaphrodite
Guest
well this is nice to hear!
J
Jay74
Guest
Very true. If someone makes an argument that you can’t debate on an intellectual level, call them a religious fanatic (also substitute: racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, nazi, talibanesque, fascist, right-wing extremists, mean-spirited, hate-mongering, etc.).
It may be effective enough to reduce the need to engage in intellectual arguments that you can’t win.
D
David_Paul
Guest
Jay74… don’t use the term “un-American” loosely but Ralph Neas and “People for the American Way” are exactly that. Their contention is that political positions based on religious belief are illegitimate. The organization was created to keep tradition Christians out of elected and appointed office. We’re in Jim Crow land when dealing with PFAW.
btw…surprise to hear Judge Pickering spit it out on C-Span the other day: PFAW is funded by Hollywood and the porno industry.
While I disagree with their positions, I would never maintain they are de facto illegitimate and should have no place in political discourse as they say of Christians.
btw…surprise to hear Judge Pickering spit it out on C-Span the other day: PFAW is funded by Hollywood and the porno industry.
While I disagree with their positions, I would never maintain they are de facto illegitimate and should have no place in political discourse as they say of Christians.
J
Jay74
Guest
EXACTLY!!! Just because we don’t agree with them or how they formed their opinions doesn’t entitle us to insult them to discredit them, just like how they shouldn’t paint people with the “religious fanatic” brush. This is where good dialogue should occur, not insults.
Blessings.
- Status