The End of the Christian Right

[Katzndogz]

It doesn't matter what view of morality there is, that's far from the point. The point is there has to be some common view of morality or the whole fails. Amoral nations do not survive because it does not have the support of the people who are the foundation of the country's existence. Nations that are significantly populated by drug addicts have no hope whatsoever.

The New American. Some fat, uneducated, lazy lout with teeth rotted from drug use and whose only concern is what man, woman, dog or toaster is going to provide the next orgasm.

There aren't enough people in the United States to defend amorality and degeneracy.

exaggerate much?

Perhaps you would have us all adopt an Amish lifestyle. Or revert to Puritanism. Or employ us as spies the way the American Legion was used by the Hoover FBI so we can reveal who the biggest transgressors are. Or maybe we can have mass rallies held at night under torch light so the one, true moral code can be inculcated. Then we could burn all those perverted books that are making us amoral!

That's just one fat, uneducated, lazy lout with teeth rotted from drug use and whose only concern is what man, woman, dog or toaster is going to provide the next orgasm American trying to do the right thing.

Engage in hyperbole much?

You are addressing a different issue. What should be done about our descent? Nothing. This is a sickness that strikes into the very heart of the fabric of the country, The people aren't going to suddenly wake up vomiting over what they are becoming. They will see each little step as some sort of progress. They see freedom as license. All great nations commit suicide, that's how they end. It's just our time. When we are gone what should pick up the mantle of individual freedom and responsibility? I'm thinking the closest might be communist China. At least it's transitioning into being far less communistic even as we become more so.

 

[Newby]

Oh! I was too busy worrying about the Rapture to notice.

That's the point, you really don't know what's good for you, but the government does!

I know that eating more than the recommended amount of fat in my daily diet is bad for me. No one has stopped the food manufacturers, butchers, restaurants and grocers from providing that amount and more. Hard cheese getting complete acquiescence with those recommendations.

But there are laws stopping homosexuals from getting legally married.

Which morality cop wields a bigger stick? The non-existent Food Police or the Neo-Puritan?

There are all kinds of laws representing what I speak of as well, food police are alive and well in San Francisco. And that was an example to give a general idea that morality is legislated all the time, and it doesn't necessarily stem from religion. As a matter of fact, the gay issue might be the only one that I know of actually. Can you name any others?

I'm a christian conservative and I don't care if gays get 'married', they'll have that option sooner than later, it's only a matter of time. So, your op is correct in her observations, and Katz's responses are also correct. Gloat all you want about the demise of a cohesive morality, but it will have consequences.

 

[Katzndogz]

There aren't laws PREVENTING homos from getting married. There just aren't laws that RECOGNIZE homo marriages.

See, the progressives want MORE laws...they want to restrict the majority from doing the things that they think they shouldn't do, and they want more laws that will allow them, the minority, to do the things THEY want to..even though those things aren't currently recognized.

Your premise is flawed. Progressives (your word, not mine) want to EXPAND FREEDOM rather than restrict it to a select group. The freedom to finally access the stabilizing force that IS marriage. The freedom to access the protections of contract law.

Conservatives, particularly Social Conservatives, would RESTRICT freedom and the protections of contract law. Just as they did by resisting the Civil Rights movement, the Women's Rights movement and every other demand from the oppressed who simply yearn to live free.

They don't want freedom. They want license. Far different. Every degenerate wants the freedom to engage in degeneracy. Don't you think that child predators want freedom to engage in their sexual practices? They most certainly do. Gays can enter into any contract they wish. Don't use "contracts" as your little red herring.

If you have not noticed, but others have, the trend is toward more license. Particularly sexual license. Now what? Is this going to get the support of all the people? No. Will the people who object be quiet, suck it up and look around for someone else to provide an alternative? Maybe. In any case, the nation will not survive. Too many fractures.

 

[Dr.Drock]

There aren't laws PREVENTING homos from getting married. There just aren't laws that RECOGNIZE homo marriages.

See, the progressives want MORE laws...they want to restrict the majority from doing the things that they think they shouldn't do, and they want more laws that will allow them, the minority, to do the things THEY want to..even though those things aren't currently recognized.

I want gov't out of marriages 100%.

If a church wants to perform or not perform a gay or straight marriage, more power to them.

If an insurance company wants to recognize it or not, or a bank refuse to put ppl on a join account, so be it.

Gov't forcing 2 consenting adults to not be allowed to get married, is wanting gov't in marriage.

 

[Newby]

There aren't laws PREVENTING homos from getting married. There just aren't laws that RECOGNIZE homo marriages.

See, the progressives want MORE laws...they want to restrict the majority from doing the things that they think they shouldn't do, and they want more laws that will allow them, the minority, to do the things THEY want to..even though those things aren't currently recognized.

I want gov't out of marriages 100%.

If a church wants to perform or not perform a gay or straight marriage, more power to them.

If an insurance company wants to recognize it or not, or a bank refuse to put ppl on a join account, so be it.

Gov't forcing 2 consenting adults to not be allowed to get married, is wanting gov't in marriage.

Why just 2 consenting adults?

 

[HUGGY]

The Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves when they see the left's slobbering hatred of Christianity today. As far as political history goes we thought communism was dead back in the 50's but the left managed to resuscitate the failed institution to the point that a socialist president hired a communist to serve on his jobs board. Wishful thinking won't make morality go away.

I'm more concerned how they would feel about an atheist republican's "slobbering hatred of Christianity today".

 

[Dr.Drock]

Who they can marry, or how many, or how old, or what species.

Everyone has boundaries, it's just where should that boundary be. You might support same sex marriage, but not support plural marriages, or marriage to a four year old, or your neighbor's german shepard. Those are your boundaries.

That's a peripeheral issue. Those are fights that will happen tomorrow. As the culture starts pushing those boundaries back, degeneracy grows and the ability of the country to hang on diminishes.

While I don't care what people do. I do object the ability of the abnormal to force me to treat them as normal. I reject it which means I don't support these people. I don't share what's in their best interests. I would not support them, defend them, or give them any consideration whatsoever. Multiply that by millions. It's a fracture line. A fault line. It is a weak spot.

Drug addicts are different. American drug addiction is becoming part of the American sterotype like American lazyness. American avarice. Whether true or not, it is another fault line, another fracture. Another point at which Americans do not find other Americans national kinsmen.

Look at your own life. Is there something about you that's "abnormal'?

Do the majority share your specific religion?

Are the majority the same sex as you?

Do the majority share your skin color, or further, your ancestry?

There's nothing in this country more important than protecting the rights of the minority. Gun owners are the minority, blacks are the minority, gays are the minority, their, well our rights as americans should be protected irregardless if we're in the majority.

 

[Dr.Drock]

There aren't laws PREVENTING homos from getting married. There just aren't laws that RECOGNIZE homo marriages.

See, the progressives want MORE laws...they want to restrict the majority from doing the things that they think they shouldn't do, and they want more laws that will allow them, the minority, to do the things THEY want to..even though those things aren't currently recognized.

I want gov't out of marriages 100%.

If a church wants to perform or not perform a gay or straight marriage, more power to them.

If an insurance company wants to recognize it or not, or a bank refuse to put ppl on a join account, so be it.

Gov't forcing 2 consenting adults to not be allowed to get married, is wanting gov't in marriage.

Why just 2 consenting adults?

Good point, I don't care if 20 consenting adults want to get married.

Why should I?

When i get married, would i love my wife less, respect my vows less if there's a 20 person marriage going on somewhere? If it does, i shouldn't have gotten married in the first place and I should have more respect for my wife.

 

[Newby]

Who they can marry, or how many, or how old, or what species.

Everyone has boundaries, it's just where should that boundary be. You might support same sex marriage, but not support plural marriages, or marriage to a four year old, or your neighbor's german shepard. Those are your boundaries.

That's a peripeheral issue. Those are fights that will happen tomorrow. As the culture starts pushing those boundaries back, degeneracy grows and the ability of the country to hang on diminishes.

While I don't care what people do. I do object the ability of the abnormal to force me to treat them as normal. I reject it which means I don't support these people. I don't share what's in their best interests. I would not support them, defend them, or give them any consideration whatsoever. Multiply that by millions. It's a fracture line. A fault line. It is a weak spot.

Drug addicts are different. American drug addiction is becoming part of the American sterotype like American lazyness. American avarice. Whether true or not, it is another fault line, another fracture. Another point at which Americans do not find other Americans national kinsmen.

Look at your own life. Is there something about you that's "abnormal'?

Do the majority share your specific religion?

Are the majority the same sex as you?

Do the majority share your skin color, or further, your ancestry?

There's nothing in this country more important than protecting the rights of the minority. Gun owners are the minority, blacks are the minority, gays are the minority, their, well our rights as americans should be protected irregardless if we're in the majority.

The Constitution covers everyone, therefore everyone has the same rights. Or are you suggesting that there are rights omitted from the Constitution?

 

[Newby]

I want gov't out of marriages 100%.

If a church wants to perform or not perform a gay or straight marriage, more power to them.

If an insurance company wants to recognize it or not, or a bank refuse to put ppl on a join account, so be it.

Gov't forcing 2 consenting adults to not be allowed to get married, is wanting gov't in marriage.

Why just 2 consenting adults?

Good point, I don't care if 20 consenting adults want to get married.

Why should I?

When i get married, would i love my wife less, respect my vows less if there's a 20 person marriage going on somewhere? If it does, i shouldn't have gotten married in the first place and I should have more respect for my wife.

It makes marriage have no meaning, might as well just not have it at all. What would be the point? Marriage either means a specific thing, or it doesn't, you can't change the meaning of it to serve the flavor of the month.

 

[Nosmo King]

There aren't laws PREVENTING homos from getting married. There just aren't laws that RECOGNIZE homo marriages.

See, the progressives want MORE laws...they want to restrict the majority from doing the things that they think they shouldn't do, and they want more laws that will allow them, the minority, to do the things THEY want to..even though those things aren't currently recognized.

Your premise is flawed. Progressives (your word, not mine) want to EXPAND FREEDOM rather than restrict it to a select group. The freedom to finally access the stabilizing force that IS marriage. The freedom to access the protections of contract law.

Conservatives, particularly Social Conservatives, would RESTRICT freedom and the protections of contract law. Just as they did by resisting the Civil Rights movement, the Women's Rights movement and every other demand from the oppressed who simply yearn to live free.

They don't want freedom. They want license. Far different. Every degenerate wants the freedom to engage in degeneracy. Don't you think that child predators want freedom to engage in their sexual practices? They most certainly do. Gays can enter into any contract they wish. Don't use "contracts" as your little red herring.

If you have not noticed, but others have, the trend is toward more license. Particularly sexual license. Now what? Is this going to get the support of all the people? No. Will the people who object be quiet, suck it up and look around for someone else to provide an alternative? Maybe. In any case, the nation will not survive. Too many fractures.

The argument against granting freedom for same sex marriage always ALWAYS gets caught in the unseemly drain of the ignorant mind. Sooner or later, some oppressive, self-righteous busy body gets naturally confused and child molesters are cited. Tiresome and juvenile, but a fire that must be extinguished before, like the anti-"Semitism of the Nzis, the lie acquires credibility due to incuriousity and intellectual agility.

All homosexuals want is access to the same protections AFFORDED BY LAW in the marriage contract that are available to any heterosexual couple, regardless of their ability to maintain a marriage.

So far as the state is concerned, and that's who is calling the shots about marriage, marriage is a contract. A contract that forms a new legal entity. A contract that binds the wealth and effort of one person to another. In order to dissolve that contract, the state has instituted particular courts. As any contract that is granted and protected by the state, those contracts require the approval of the state to dissolve.

Churches SANCTIFY marriage. The state licenses it.

 

[Nosmo King]

There aren't laws PREVENTING homos from getting married. There just aren't laws that RECOGNIZE homo marriages.

See, the progressives want MORE laws...they want to restrict the majority from doing the things that they think they shouldn't do, and they want more laws that will allow them, the minority, to do the things THEY want to..even though those things aren't currently recognized.

I want gov't out of marriages 100%.

If a church wants to perform or not perform a gay or straight marriage, more power to them.

If an insurance company wants to recognize it or not, or a bank refuse to put ppl on a join account, so be it.

Gov't forcing 2 consenting adults to not be allowed to get married, is wanting gov't in marriage.

Why just 2 consenting adults?

There are other contractual arraignments that can be made. But the convenience of the marriage contract has been established. Two consenting adults if only to keep the loonies from baying about marrying German Shepards or four year olds.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Who they can marry, or how many, or how old, or what species.

Everyone has boundaries, it's just where should that boundary be. You might support same sex marriage, but not support plural marriages, or marriage to a four year old, or your neighbor's german shepard. Those are your boundaries.

That's a peripeheral issue. Those are fights that will happen tomorrow. As the culture starts pushing those boundaries back, degeneracy grows and the ability of the country to hang on diminishes.

While I don't care what people do. I do object the ability of the abnormal to force me to treat them as normal. I reject it which means I don't support these people. I don't share what's in their best interests. I would not support them, defend them, or give them any consideration whatsoever. Multiply that by millions. It's a fracture line. A fault line. It is a weak spot.

Drug addicts are different. American drug addiction is becoming part of the American sterotype like American lazyness. American avarice. Whether true or not, it is another fault line, another fracture. Another point at which Americans do not find other Americans national kinsmen.

Look at your own life. Is there something about you that's "abnormal'?

Do the majority share your specific religion?

Are the majority the same sex as you?

Do the majority share your skin color, or further, your ancestry?

There's nothing in this country more important than protecting the rights of the minority. Gun owners are the minority, blacks are the minority, gays are the minority, their, well our rights as americans should be protected irregardless if we're in the majority.

The Constitution covers everyone, therefore everyone has the same rights. Or are you suggesting that there are rights omitted from the Constitution?

Correct everyone should have same rights, we're in agreement.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Why just 2 consenting adults?

Good point, I don't care if 20 consenting adults want to get married.

Why should I?

When i get married, would i love my wife less, respect my vows less if there's a 20 person marriage going on somewhere? If it does, i shouldn't have gotten married in the first place and I should have more respect for my wife.

It makes marriage have no meaning, might as well just not have it at all. What would be the point? Marriage either means a specific thing, or it doesn't, you can't change the meaning of it to serve the flavor of the month.

Not sure if you're married or not.

If you are, will your specific marriage vows to your husband mean less to you, your commitment to him mean less to you, based on if 20 ppl can get married or not?

Does the fact that someone gets married 10 times make your marriage mean less? Or that people get married after knowing each other 1 night? Or arranged marriages from ppl who never meet until they're married? Hollywood marriages for tv ratings? Any of that cheapen your marriage?

 

[Nosmo King]

I wonder why the Right is more comfortable restricting freedom from others concerning marriage than taking a second look at no fault divorce laws?

 

[Katzndogz]

I wonder why the Right is more comfortable restricting freedom from others concerning marriage than taking a second look at no fault divorce laws?

No fault divorce laws came from liberals didn't it?

There you go.

 

[Katzndogz]

I want gov't out of marriages 100%.

If a church wants to perform or not perform a gay or straight marriage, more power to them.

If an insurance company wants to recognize it or not, or a bank refuse to put ppl on a join account, so be it.

Gov't forcing 2 consenting adults to not be allowed to get married, is wanting gov't in marriage.

Why just 2 consenting adults?

There are other contractual arraignments that can be made. But the convenience of the marriage contract has been established. Two consenting adults if only to keep the loonies from baying about marrying German Shepards or four year olds.

That's a boundary. For a truly licentious culture there would be no boundaries at all. So you DO wish to restrict the rights of others. You just want to pick and choose which others.

The time has come to just watch. Take care of yourself, look for a culture to substitute when this one dies, and make the move when it become opportune.

 

[Newby]

I want gov't out of marriages 100%.

If a church wants to perform or not perform a gay or straight marriage, more power to them.

If an insurance company wants to recognize it or not, or a bank refuse to put ppl on a join account, so be it.

Gov't forcing 2 consenting adults to not be allowed to get married, is wanting gov't in marriage.

Why just 2 consenting adults?

There are other contractual arraignments that can be made. But the convenience of the marriage contract has been established. Two consenting adults if only to keep the loonies from baying about marrying German Shepards or four year olds.

So you're restricting freedom for them then? Why do you draw a line? Does what you see as 'moral' compell you to make that line? So, you see those people as loonies, where as other people see gays as 'loonies'. What makes you right as opposed to them? Because you're promoting freedom and they're not? Yet you still have your own line?

 

[Nosmo King]

Why just 2 consenting adults?

There are other contractual arraignments that can be made. But the convenience of the marriage contract has been established. Two consenting adults if only to keep the loonies from baying about marrying German Shepards or four year olds.

So you're restricting freedom for them then? Why do you draw a line? Does what you see as 'moral' compell you to make that line? So, you see those people as loonies, where as other people see gays as 'loonies'. What makes you right as opposed to them? Because you're promoting freedom and they're not? Yet you still have your own line?

I have always restricted the freedom of animals and children to enter legal contracts.

 

[Katzndogz]

I don't see gays as loonies. I see the lunacy in accepting same sex relationships as normal and rejecting their aberration. In THIS context. For purposes of THIS discussion. It is a distraction. There are too many fault lines for the nation to survive. It will crack along these lines and collapse whether or not any individual accepts or rejects the concept of homosexual relationships.

If someone looks at it realistically instead of wanting to impose their morality on others, it's obvious that the divisions have reached a point where compromise is impossible. If you want specifics and use same sex marriage, do it. There is no point on which there can be compromise on the issue of same sex marriage. It is a fracture that cannot be overcome.

That's the issue.