David Limbaugh on faggots

[jimnyc]

'Gay Marriage' is Not about 'Rights'

Proponents of traditional values are making a tactical error in allowing the homosexual lobby to frame the issue of same-sex marriage merely as one of equal rights for gays. Much more is at stake.

Let me raise a few questions. Do you believe that marriage is properly an institution between a man and a woman? Do you believe marriage, so defined, is an indispensable building block of our society? If you answered yes to these questions, do you believe that there is something wrong with you for wanting to preserve an institution that you believe is essential for society? Are you a homophobe? Are you full of hate?

The gay lobby, in its tireless determination, has succeeded in framing the same-sex marriage issue as one of equal rights instead of the right of a society to preserve its foundational institutions. They have painted those who nobly want to preserve these institutions as hateful, homophobic bigots.

But opposition to same-sex marriage not about "rights," and it's not about hate or bigotry. No one is preventing homosexuals from living with one another. All homosexuals have a "right" to get married and to have that marriage sanctioned by the state.

But in order to do that they must marry someone of the opposite sex -- that's what marriage means and has always meant. When they insist that society be forced to redefine marriage to sanction same-sex unions, they are attempting to establish new and special rights.

What's worse is that if we view this from the narrow perspective of "gay rights," we are overlooking that these "rights" will not be created in a vacuum, without consequences to our society. It's not as simple as saying that homosexuals will have the right to live together and receive the "legal incidents" of marriage.

If they coerce society into placing its imprimatur on same-sex marriage, they will have eroded one of the fundamental supports of our society. But in our postmodern licentious, amoral culture, we are so hung up on radical individualism we no longer seem to comprehend that society has a vital interest in establishing rules grounded in morality and enforced by law.

This is the larger issue underlying the marriage turf battle. Does our society even have a mandate anymore to base its laws on moral absolutes? Or does our myopic zeal for pluralism, "tolerance," "multiculturalism," "secularism," and moral relativism require that we abandon the moral pillars upon which our system is built?

I know it is chic to subscribe to the mindless notion that we can't legislate morality or that we can't even base our laws on our moral and religious beliefs, but that thinking is as destructive as it is nonsensical. We have always based our laws on our moral beliefs and must continue to for them to have any legitimacy.

It is completely possible to base a nation's constitutional system on specific religious beliefs and simultaneously guarantee the rights of its citizens to exercise other religious beliefs. That's precisely what our predominantly Christian Framers did. They built a system on Judeo-Christian roots, which they believed would guarantee, not threaten, political and religious freedom. America's history conclusively vindicates them.

They designed a governmental system grounded in the laws of nature established by the God they believe created them in His image and Who was therefore the source of their inalienable rights. A society so founded has an interest in preserving the moral foundation established by this God and observing His laws of nature. And the protection of this interest is wholly consistent with, indeed essential to, guaranteeing an ordered society with maximum political and religious liberties.

We are so spoiled with our freedoms that we never stop to think that they are based on a moral foundation, which, if uprooted, will uproot our liberties as well. You don't have to be an ardent churchgoer to grasp that we cannot continue in our rebellious and narcissistic quest for unrestrained liberty with impunity.

If we persist in demanding freedom without responsibility; if we recklessly reject self-control and moral parameters; if we defy the laws of nature established by an omniscient God, we can expect chaos and the eventual erosion of liberty.

It is chilling that those who want to preserve our unique system and the unparalleled freedom it guarantees are viewed as a threat to that freedom, when, in fact, they are its sacred guardians.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/27/90226.shtml

 

[Bullypulpit]

Whoinnnahell is David Limbaugh?

<blockquote>"We are so spoiled with our freedoms that we never stop to think that they are based on a moral foundation, which, if uprooted, will uproot our liberties as well. You don't have to be an ardent churchgoer to grasp that we cannot continue in our rebellious and narcissistic quest for unrestrained liberty with impunity."</blockquote>

In this, as in most of his rant, the author is wrong. We are not "spoiled" by our freedoms...We have forgotten that with freedom comes resposibility. And for the moral foundation of those freedoms to have any real meaning at all, it must be rooted in the real consequences to real human life in this world.

Armed with an understanding of the responsibility our freedoms entail as well as a human, and humane, moral foundation for those freedoms, the slide towards nihilism and dissolution the author fears can be avoided.

 

[jimnyc]

You're wrong. You speak solely for yourself. Your opinion is inconsequential. Go clean a pisspan. Bye.

 

[DKSuddeth]

his opinion is not inconsequential, else your opinion would be considered inconsequential by anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint.

we don't agree on some things jim, but that doesn't mean your opinion is inconsequential to me.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
his opinion is not inconsequential, else your opinion would be considered inconsequential by anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint.

we don't agree on some things jim, but that doesn't mean your opinion is inconsequential to me.

His opinion IS inconsequential because all he does is repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over...

He's like a damn moveon.org parrot that has infiltrated the board. He has admitted himself on at least 3 occasions in the past week that he purposely pushes people on this board because he enjoys "watchin' y'all get yer knickers in a twist".

He has made his own words inconsequential with such admissions.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Whoinnnahell is David Limbaugh?

<blockquote>"We are so spoiled with our freedoms that we never stop to think that they are based on a moral foundation, which, if uprooted, will uproot our liberties as well. You don't have to be an ardent churchgoer to grasp that we cannot continue in our rebellious and narcissistic quest for unrestrained liberty with impunity."</blockquote>

In this, as in most of his rant, the author is wrong. We are not "spoiled" by our freedoms...We have forgotten that with freedom comes resposibility.

Isn't that sort of like being spoiled? In your zeal to be disagreeable, you've stopped making sense..

And for the moral foundation of those freedoms to have any real meaning at all, it must be rooted in the real consequences to real human life in this world.

I believe all things should be rooted the real consequences to real human life in this world. Who would argue otherwise? Who could argue otherwise? Who knows what the hell you're even talking about?

 

[montyfowler]

I love talking about this issue. Because you can beat the Liberal position with there own vodoo stick.

As many of you know, I am a Christian and much of what I have to say here is bolstered by my faith. Well here is one area where I feel comfortable talking from a purely secular humanist perspective. Here goes.

BIOLOGY
Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. There is not a shred of scientific evidence, either direct or indirect, that supports the notion that homosexual behavior has a basis in genetics. The simple fact that the longterm behavior is not observed anywhere else in nature, serves as prima facia evidence that homosexuality is a learned response. Although brief acts of same sex copulation have been observed in apes and odontocetes, these behaviors have only been observed duing periods of male dominance rituals, where the act of same sex copulation is seen as an expression of Alpha-male dominance, and not a true sexual preference.

If homosexuality is not a naturally occuring state, then how can it be the basis for a law or laws that give protected status to its practicioners? In order for a person to qualify for a protected class status, logic would dictate that the person not have the opportunity to opt-in to the protected class. But that is exactly what homosexuals can do. They can make a lifestyle choice that gives them protected class status. That should be viewed as an afront to anyone who is genuinely entitled to protection as a member of a minority or protected class.

SOCIETY
As with biology, human culture is driven by societal evolution over time. The basic unit of human culture is the family. Throughout all of human history a family has been defined as a man and a woman who made a public commitment to each other to procreate and participate in the larger societal unit. No culture in all of history has viewed same sex partnerships as anything other than aberrant behavior. Why is this?

Quite simply because the very nature of such a relationship is contrary to the overarching human imperative: procreation. In our earliest civilizations, any union that did not yield offspring was deemed by the society at large as a waste of resources. That is why all of the worlds cultures had provisions for bigamy/poligamy, even when it was in stark contrast to the dominant religion. Like biologoical evolution, societal evolution will always favor and protect those behaviors and modes that encourage procreation and diversification of the gene pool.

There is nothing in the classic Darwinian model of evolution that would allow homosexual behavior to promulgate throughout generations since it yields no benefit for the species. Indeed, the genetic expression of such a behvior would likely not survive one generation, as there would be no offspring resulting from such behavior, assuming no heterosexual contact was made by the genetic vector.

I would love to hear some rational responses from those in favor of gay marriage. Specifically, how does sanctioned gay marriage benefit society? I understand how it benefits the individual...but what about the larger question?