jrodmc wrote:Riiiiiiiiight...it's "moving away from being an issue" but you're posting about Stupid People in the barber shop who don't happen to see it "moving away". And a list of RINO's and something like "young Republicans" makes it not an important moral issue to anyone anymore, right?Please explain how a particular sexual preference is equated to a basic human/civil right. Use examples along the same lines.
I'm Black and it was a Black barber shop. Anywhere between 88%-93% of this population identifies with a liberal political platform, so I was not insinuating anything about conservatism, as I've already stated. This thread has and always been about how ignorant people can be in what they deem to be important/relevant to their lives.
jrodmc wrote:Please explain how being a "decent human being" includes the wholesale acceptance of homosexuality? Suppose consenting adults commit adultery? Or incest? Or necrophelia? And why wouldn't a "decent human being" mean accpetance of all sorts of human activity, not just selected sexual preferences? And your concept of morality can equate human sexuality with minor traffic laws? Common sense and enlightened, indeed.
Like I said, your common sense comments concede putting morality behind money. As just a matter of course. Interesting.
Because what someone does in the privacy of their own home, should not be a concern of yours or mine. The key here is consent between both parties and the fact that no one is being hurt or having their rights infringed upon. There is no consent with necrophelia and the "sorts of human activity" that you are probably envisioning.
And I was not equating "human sexuality with minor traffic laws"; you were through your line of reasoning. You mentioned a "redefining of words" as the basis for your aversion to homosexuality, which I could only conclude to be a body of laws. I pointed out how ludicrous it is to presume that laws are inherently moral because the vast majority, secular or otherwise, has little to do with morality and everything to do with practicality e.g. jaywalking. Truth be told, even the basis of morality has its essence rooted in practicality. We don't kill people because it would create an atmosphere of mistrust and anxiety that would make it impossible for us to serve a common good. We don't steal from others because it de-incentivizes others from working to get those items. Homosexuality has no negative effects on society.
jrodmc wrote:Ah yes, once again, the tired old "sexual preference" = "race" argument. When do you play the "God made me this way" card while arguing against a moral law? What do you do with any or all of those who don't continue to live out that "preference" anymore? When did you read and study about Black people not being Black people anymore?And while you're at it, Perry Mason, what is inherently equal to fairness or righteousness? From who, what or where are your standards derived from?
Yes, sexual preference and race are elements of the human characters. I was born a Black, heterosexual male just as a homosexual was born being a homosexual. I'm not sure how you can argue sexual orientation as being anything other than an innate quality. Did you need someone to tell you to like women? If so, you might have bigger problems than this argument, LMFAO.
jrodmc wrote:Your acceptance in the role of God is greatly appreciated by all us Stupid People. I wonder why you didn't speak up in the barber shop and start bettering the country right then and there? Don't have the courage of your ideal convictions except when typing anonymously on the internet? And yes, I've upheld and spoke out in public about my "right wing idiot" support for anti-abortion and my non-support for gay marriage legislation.
I actually very loudly said "so no one has any comments or gestures to make about that (about the unnecessary increase in expenditures for Meals on Wheels, in spite of a decrease in service quality)". No one said or did anything because they know where I stand on social issues, since I've been going there for a year now. Good try though.
jrodmc wrote:
Not having any obvious clue about the moral implications of a "sexual preference" as a "basic human right", I guess I was reaching too far trying to get you to respond to the issue of abortion. Which you apparently see as a "game". Honestly buddy, are you serious? Again, really, how old are you?You spout these pontifications about what you support on the basis of what? Why is killing an unborn baby supportable by you "in any and every case that merits it"? Let's see, what "merits it" in your estimation here:
1) Someone's (or anyone's) assessment of parenting capability. [Who gets to set that scale?]
2) Having the humility to realize that killing the unborn is more responsible then dealing with the consequences of your actions (in this case, sex) [and please spare me your insipid liberal chanting of "what about incest? what about rape? what about tubal preganancy and the death of the mother? special pleading] and the humility to realize that no matter what dopey latin or greek term you use to descibe the life in the womb, that that life has just as much a right to exist as you humbly do.
3) Burden to the system. I feel truly sorry for you, Nard. I hope and pray to the Jesus you obviously know little to nothing about that you're never in the situation of having an OB/GYN sit in front of you and tell you that the baby you've fathered is only going to be a burden to the system. You see, I've actually been there. I've had the top high-risk pregnancy doctor on the East Coast of the USA tell my wife and I that it would be better for us to abort, because in his vaunted opinion, our child would only be a "tax burden to society". And that "tax burden" fetus is now a 13 year old honor student.
And you'll rail against "right wing idiots" who won't fund services to support the poor and needy, but you'll support legislation to destroy those children before they get a chance to become poor and needy. Yes, as we all know, better dead than in the red, right?
Money over morality. See how that works in real life?
Do you actually know the proper use of quotation marks (",")? I never referred to abortion as a "game", so I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I did. As I've said before, I would never coerce my significant other into an abortion but I don't believe in it FOR MY family. I am not egotistical enough, however, to assume that what is good for me and mine, is good for everyone else. This isn't some totalitarian society and we're the better for it not being one despite the efforts of people like you.
I briefly considered responding to your other points but why should it be my responsibility to deal with your ignorance? This thread isn't about you and your social agenda. If you want to talk about abortion, start your own thread and I'd probably oblige you. If you want to contribution to the discussion that everyone else is actually having, then focus on the actual discussion that everyone else is actually having. To reiterate, this discussion is about how people choose to ignore items that have direct consequences on their livelihood while being outraged by other events that have no effect on their livelihood. Whatever you decide to do, take your pulpit elsewhere in the meantime.
jrodmc wrote:Yes, right, when all else fails, blame the military. Excuse me, but how did the Roman Empire come to be an empire to begin with? Some day, when you grow up or wake up, you might find out that "loving each other" as you use the term, is a bit more than what you currently think. But as you say, word definitions, who gives a ****, right?
So are you trying to insinuate that a multi-front invasion of the empire during the 5th century, in addition to multiple uprisings that were emboldened by military regulars being stretched too thin, had nothing to do with the fall of the Roman Empire? Please let me know so that I could respond accordingly.
