Nevertheless should they aim to pass policies that would force me (or my children) to recognize, accept, fraternize with or in any way support them, this, on the basis of what they do in their bedrooms, I might consider this a threat to my liberty and/or existence. (Existence is to me a broad term, encompassing not only physical life, but also quality of life and values).
What policies are you talking about? Be specific. And who's forcing you to fraternize with anyone? I fully support your right to live your own lifestyle and raise your children as you see fit. Where's the problem here?
For some of us “morality” is by necessity an unchanging code
For me, "morality" is my view of right and wrong, good and bad, and at a deep fundamental level, that is unchangeable.
Surely one need not be a religious person to understand basic decency, integrity and trust. These things can be based upon one's own desire for self-preservation.
Or one's belief that such qualities are innate manifestations of the normal human psyche. Along with benevolence and tolerance of diversity. The concept of original sin and mankinds inherent tendency towards evil is a repugnant manifestation of religious irrationality, IMO.
I believe over the long haul, philosophical assaults are just as pernicious as physical ones
Agreed, as long as they exist in reality and are not figments of paranoia.
I am entitled not to by force of law be either compelled to have an abortion, or to support it with my resources. This is reasonable, and yet liberals are always frothing at the mouth to force me to support what I consider pure murder and utter barbarity.
I am pro choice. To me, life begins when consciousness begins. When the brain functions, life exists. That to me is the dividing line on abortion. I do support your contention that you should not be forced to pay for, with your tax dollars, procedures that you consider murder. I also adamantly oppose capital punishment, not through any bleeding heart concern for the scum that deserve it, but through a philisophical conviction that the state should not have the power to murder individuals.
And why do you have a problem with deceit? What if the deceit is bilateral? Whatever the case, why is any of this your business?
True. I'll retract the statement. It's just a reflection of personal values.
Homosexuals can do as they please as far as I am concerned. I simply do not want the might of law to be used against me to support it in any way. It is a flagrant contortion, indeed a perverse denial of human identity. I consider it most unsound to take cavalier attitudes toward things that are flagrant denials of my identity. So I do not want the government to tell me I must allow it to be held before myself and my children as “healthy” and “normal”. My position is stronger since there is obviously no genetic partition between homosexual behaviour and normalcy.
Why should the law support it or deny it in any way? Who the hell cares what turns people on? I certainly don't. If you wish to teach your children what you believe to be "healthy" and "normal", that's fine with me. I'll even support voucher and tax relief programs so you can send your kids to a religious school where they can pray all day long and learn to resist the evil temptations of godless homosexual depravity (as if it's an acquired orientation). LOL!!
Live and let live and live by the golden rule...
JB
|
