Friday, 21 January 2005 - 9:13 PM EST

What is truth. Anything you seek that corresponds to your belief. You don't know the truth except the truth that you seek, and logically is a lie. Any reality which cannot be percieved in it's entirity is a not truth.
What is a liberal, huh??, I mean, I have long hair, but I hate hippie type kids, Clinton, Gore and the rest. Am I a liberal..I'm in fact a registered Republican.
But I loathe Bush...despise him.
I would have voted for Powell, or Kane. But Bush is a retarded little fool, a face.
I''m not coming back so don't insult me.

Saturday, 22 January 2005 - 5:41 PM EST

You know, Scott, I never read this post of yours before - I would say it is a bit harsh. Same sex/different species marriage? C'mon, I really don't think that is what you truly believe the libs are after. You know my position-consenting adult tax payers should be able to enter into any union among themselves that provide the same rights as traditional marriage. What is wrong with secularism? Is not just the right not to worship. What about the right wing attack on the 'jews running Hollywood?' I would certainly agree with monophonics assertion that Bush is the 'lipstick on the pig' of the current neo-con agenda.

Saturday, 22 January 2005 - 11:53 PM EST

Greetings,

First, let me thank you for visiting my blog and taking the time to comment on my postings. I do wish you will return as I relish a good debate!

>>>What is truth. Anything you seek that corresponds to your belief. You don't know the truth except the truth that you seek, and logically is a lie.
No, truth is an objective reality that is revealed when a man uses his God-given reason. Truth is anything but subjective.

>>>Any reality which cannot be percieved in it's entirity is a not truth.
Initially, I thought I agreed with this, but upon further reflection, I realized that this is a false statement. For example, was Newton wrong because he could not comprehend Einstein's universe? Of course not. Sometimes the truth is doled out in small parcels. However, I would add that only a complete understanding of a particular issue, theorem, etc, can lead to true Wisdom.

>>>What is a liberal, huh??, I mean, I have long hair, but I hate hippie type kids, Clinton, Gore and the rest.
Liberalism has nothing to do with hair style. Liberalism has everything to do with a political slant. For example, you are a contemporary Liberal if you believe government is the solution to all of life's problems. You are a liberal if you believe that there is no objective Truth, only personnal opinions. You are a liberal if you believe all money belongs to the government first, and the individual second. I could go on, and on. But the point is this: liberalism as a political philosophy can be defined. Now, as with all things in the realm of human endeavor, there is not a hard and fast definition of a true liberal. But, also like most things in the realm of human endeavor, common sense can often decipher where, on the political spectrum, an individual should be placed.

>>>Am I a liberal..I'm in fact a registered Republican.
But I loathe Bush...despise him.
I would have voted for Powell, or Kane. But Bush is a retarded little fool, a face.
I cannot answer that question without getting to know you better.
I am curious about one thing: why do you hate Bush? You say you do, but you provide no reason why other then portraying him as being "a retarded little fool, a face." Would you care you explain some more?

>>>I''m not coming back so don't insult me I hope you do so we can resolve these issues. And as many of my liberal friends can attest, I don't insult anyone. Please come back and defend you POV as I am really tired of these hit-and-run attacks by libs (et alia) that seem to be afraid to defend themselves in depth. :-)

Sunday, 23 January 2005 - 2:00 AM EST

Greetings John,

>>>You know, Scott, I never read this post of yours before - I would say it is a bit harsh. Same sex/different species marriage? C'mon, I really don't think that is what you truly believe the libs are after.
I think you know that this comment was made tongue-in-cheek, although the logical conclusion of same-sex marriage arguments is the eventual permission of any type of marriage that an individual deems is in his/her best interest.

>>>You know my position-consenting adult tax payers should be able to enter into any union among themselves that provide the same rights as traditional marriage.
The answer is thus: conclusive evidence has proven than a marriage between a man and a women is the best & healthiest arrangement for the upbringing of children, something that is essential to the well-being of a civilization. Now, if you want to co-habitate with a goat, go right ahead, there is nothing that can stop you in the privacy of your home. But when society sanctions a relationship, which, at the most secular level a marriage certificate certifies, you are no longer an individual acting on his own behalf, you are also acting in the interest of the state. With that in mind, a state has every right to say what it beneficial to its long-term interests, and what is detrimental. Mind you, I am not addressing theological points here, only secular points. Therefore, if we are going to allow civil societies to sanction marriages, then we need to also recognize that marriage is no longer a matter of self-interest, but one of the general welfare of the state.


>>>What is wrong with secularism? Is not just the right not to worship. There is nothing wrong with secularism. The problem today is that secularists are trying to impose their minority views upon a majority of non-secularists. If secularists would follow their own credo of "live and let live," none of these acrimonious debates would now be taking place.

>>>What about the right wing attack on the 'jews running Hollywood?' What about it? Are you saying one pig-headed statement (taken in isolation, of course) justifies the pig-headedness of the secularists?

>>>I would certainly agree with monophonics assertion that Bush is the 'lipstick on the pig' of the current neo-con agenda. Here we go again with the moron-who-is-also-an-evil-genius debate. That argument is dead. Bush has lead this country through four successful years and won re-election by an historic margin. Enough with the puppet-master theory. Nobody but the extreme-Left buys that anymore.

Sunday, 30 January 2005 - 3:20 PM EST

Yes, but who decides what is best for society? Religion? Christians? Why should some people be ostracized simply because of how nature told them to love? Two adults caring for one another. Bringing goats or man-boy love into the equation is just a red herring. Those two examples involve exploitation of beings that cannot make decisions for themselves due to the fact that one is an animal which does not have the luxury of choice while the other has not had enough experience to decide for themselves what is right for them. I find it quite ironic and hypocritical that Christians, at one time persecuted by the Romans for being a homosexual suicide cult, would turn around and oppress those who disagree with their teachings. Futhermore how can religion be the basis for such discrimination when the only proof we have of divine revelation is the earth we live on? Homosexuals are people created from this earth as we all are, so how can we say that they don't deserve the same rights as others? Isn't it just the will of nature? If sexuality is a choice, when did any of us choose to be straight or gay? The earth is a living organism just as we are. Maybe homosexuality is simply nature's form of population control. The alternatives such as floods, earthquakes etc. are much more horrible than the thought of men kissing. Who is to say that gays can't be good parents? I've seen many more hetero couples that have been much more detrimental to their child's development. Many of them have been very religious. So what is right?

Sunday, 30 January 2005 - 5:00 PM EST

"conclusive evidence has proven than a marriage between a man and a women is the best & healthiest arrangement for the upbringing of children, something that is essential to the well-being of a civilization"

-What 'conclusive evidence' are you referring to?

Sunday, 30 January 2005 - 5:05 PM EST

>What about the right wing attack on the 'jews running Hollywood?' What about it? Are you saying one pig-headed statement (taken in isolation, of course) justifies the pig-headedness of the secularists?

-Just pointing out hypocrisy. That's my job.

Friday, 4 February 2005 - 1:31 AM EST

Greetings,

>>>Yes, but who decides what is best for society? Religion? Christians?
In a republic, like the US, the people, through their elected representatives, decided what is in the best interests of society. That is the way our nation functions. An because we are an open society, this can be a very dynamic process. For example, during the so-called "counter-cultural revolution", sexual experimentation was in and often encouraged. Now, because of almost 40 years of resulting evidence that such "alternative lifestyles" can be quite harmful to society, the American people are beginning to oppose these legalistic attempts at social engineering. Such are the (fortunate) vicissitudes of republics.

>>>Why should some people be ostracized simply because of how nature told them to love?
First, to what ostrcization are you referring? The last I checked, there were no homosexuals being loaded onto boats and cast adrift on the ocean. In fact, last I looked, there were at least three TV shows and countless magazines and political organizations dedicated to spreading the homosexual message. That is a strange way to be ostracized.

Second, forget this whole "nature" bunk. Men and women are not animals, they are rational creatures. Just because an impulse directs some in a particular direction does not mean that impulse must be obeyed. Nature also dictates that certain species, as well as certain humans, practice cannablism. Should that impulse be obeyed as well because it is ordered from "nature"---the new pagan god?

>>>Two adults caring for one another.
Again, no one is arguing that two same-sex adults cannot "care" for one another. What IS at issue is what legal rights such couples enjoy---an entirely different matter.

>>>Bringing goats or man-boy love into the equation is just a red herring.
Not at all. If one was to follow the logic made for same-sex unions to it logical conclusion, NO relationship can be prohibited as long as it is consensual. It is very interesting to note that many of the same arguments being used for same-sex unions was first put forth by NAMBLA: the North American Man-Boy Love Association, a group that has consistently promoted BOTH homosexuality and pedophilia. That should give anyone pause for thought when evaluating these ridiculous arguments in favor of same-sex unions.


>>>I find it quite ironic and hypocritical that Christians, at one time persecuted by the Romans for being a homosexual suicide cult, would turn around and oppress those who disagree with their teachings.
Again I ask you: WHAT OPPRESSION?!?

If you don't like the teaching of Christianity, don't be a Christian. It is as simple as that. Nothing gives homosexuals the right to impose THEIR beliefs upon religious organizations. It was not religious organizations that sought to bring the might of the state into the private sphere of adult relations, it was the homosexual groups that did. Now they are complaining that they are reaping what they have sown. How ironic is that?

>>>Futhermore how can religion be the basis for such discrimination when the only proof we have of divine revelation is the earth we live on?
Way off base on that. First, WHAT DISCRIMINATION?!? Second, we have the Bible as proof of divine revelation. And the Bible clearly prohibits homosexual relations.

>>>Homosexuals are people created from this earth as we all are, so how can we say that they don't deserve the same rights as others?
Children are people "created from this earth as we all are", yet they do not enjoy the same rights as adults. The point is this: rights are political, social, and economic principles protected by the rule of law due to its value to society. Not every human inclination must be accorded the status of a legal "right" because somebody feels disenfranchised. If what you practice is detrimental to the well-being of society, you action will not be protected by law; it will not be considered a political right. Such is the case with same-sex unions.

>>>Isn't it just the will of nature? If sexuality is a choice, when did any of us choose to be straight or gay? The earth is a living organism just as we are. Maybe homosexuality is simply nature's form of population control.
By that Gaian logic, we should immediately suspend the use of anti-biotics as disease is clearly just nature's method of population control. The same for mass-murderers. After all, who really believes someone "chose" to live the dangerous and bleak life of a serial killer.

Men are not animals, but rational creatures. Nature does not control our will, God-given reason does.

You know, I have always found it perversely fascinating how the homosexual moment willfully seeks to be portrayed as no different that your run-of-the-mill animal. And then they wonder why they aren't accorded all the dignity they believe they deserve.

Friday, 4 February 2005 - 2:06 AM EST

First,

Nature versus nurture:

http://www.drthrockmorton.com/effortstomodify.htm

This is a link to a report concerning the successful use of therapy to change sexual orientation. Be warned: it is a clinical paper and thus, extremely DRY reading. But fascinating nonetheless.
At it's most basic level, it would seem to undermine the notion that homosexuality is a completely natural inclination.

Second,

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMUN.HTM

This is a fascinating article on the official position of the Roman Catholic Church concerning same-sex unions. What is of particular interest is how it interprets the legal concept of political rights in view of "right reason". It is heady philosophical stuff! And, needless to say, supports many of my positions with a far greater degree of clarity and, well, "right reason". :-)

Third, a study on same-sex unions & children found (sorry, I closed the wesbsite before I copied the URL and now I can't find it! The website dealth with all homosexual issues.):

"2) Negative side effects. Attending homosexual practice is a disproportionately high rate of negative side effects as regards (a) health (sexually transmitted disease, mental health problems, and shortened life expectancy) and (b) relational dynamics (short term relationships, high numbers of sex partners). These problems are, in the first instance, attributable to the non-complementarity of homoerotic unions: the extremes of one's sex are not moderated and gaps are not filled. Approving homosexual behavior will also contribute to the gender identity confusion of adolescents and, by virtue of denying any significance or value to male-female differences, will bring about the destruction of all gender norms and societal endorsement of transvestism and transgenderism"


and

Fourth, (http://www.family.org/welcome/press/a0020031.cfm)

"Children raised in a stable, married, heterosexual home do better than children raised in any other type of household. They are healthier physically and emotionally, do better academically, experience less poverty and commit fewer crimes.

Children need both a mother and a father. Why? Sociologist David Popenoe of Rutgers University has done extensive research on the different functions that mothers and fathers play in their children's lives. His studies show that while fathers tend to stress competition, challenge, initiative and risk-taking, mothers stress emotional security and personal safety. When disciplining, mothers provide important flexibility and sympathy, while fathers provide predictability and consistency. By nature, same-sex couples are unable to provide one-half of this equation. "


Hope this helps!

Friday, 4 February 2005 - 3:18 PM EST

So what I'm wondering is this: if homosexuality is a learned behavior, then who was it learned from? Could it be a reaction against the breakdown of the patriarchal family structure? Children watching their hetero parent's marriage dissolve due to factors such as infidelity, spousal abuse, and/or extreme piety. I actually dated someone whose parents experienced the last one of these - very strange indeed. I would certainly agree that a homosexual union that is rife with infidelity would not be a good environment for children to be raised - then again I would say the same about a hetero union with the same characteristics. Not all gay people are sluts. Just like all gays are not pedophiles or lamb-rammers as your main post asserts. This is the problem: if one is going to make broad assumptions about a particular group, why not take a good hard look at the group one belongs to. Let he without sin cast the first stone...

Friday, 4 February 2005 - 9:46 PM EST

The Christians in our govt are trying to pass legislation limiting the rights of homosexuals - the whole point of this argument. This is the example of oppression that I am reffering to. How 'bout a comment on the fact that the existence of the Earth is the only irrefutable evidence of divine revelation. Your reference to NAMBLA totally disregards my position that we are talking about two consenting ADULTS. NAMBLA has no argument with regard to my position - their name proves that. Gaia theory does not lead us down a slippery slope to justifying murder because murderers are infringing on the rights of others to live. This is my whole point - liberty and freedom to do what you want with out infringing on another's rights. I'll get to the other stuff later...

Friday, 4 February 2005 - 9:52 PM EST

How is the bible irrefutable proof? It is a politcal document. The books of the bible were consolidated by committee. If God guided the hands of the writers then what about the books that were edited out? How are they less holy if they were written by the hand of God and how do you justify man overruling God?

Saturday, 12 February 2005 - 9:07 PM EST

>>>So what I'm wondering is this: if homosexuality is a learned behavior, then who was it learned from? Could it be a reaction against the breakdown of the patriarchal family structure? Children watching their hetero parent's marriage dissolve due to factors such as infidelity, spousal abuse, and/or extreme piety.
Good question as well as good surmises. Regardless of how it is learned, it does seem to be a behavioral problem in some people, and not physical, because many psychiatrists are having success converting (for lack of a better word) homosexuals into heterosexuals. Not just in the short term either, there are cases where "switches" were maintained for the rest of a person's adult life.


>>>I would certainly agree that a homosexual union that is rife with infidelity would not be a good environment for children to be raised - then again I would say the same about a hetero union with the same characteristics. Not all gay people are sluts. Just like all gays are not pedophiles or lamb-rammers as your main post asserts.
I NEVER suggested that ALL gays are pedophiles, etc.

>>>This is the problem: if one is going to make broad assumptions about a particular group, why not take a good hard look at the group one belongs to. Let he without sin cast the first stone...
Good point, but no one was arguing that every traditional family is heaven on Earth. The issue being forced is whether or not homosexuals should have a right to marry. As such, a critical examination of the homosexual lifestyle, and any resulting issues, needs then to be carefully examined. You cannot demand a right to something and then refuse to demonstrate why you deserve that right in the first place. Unfortunately, that is exactly they strategy the activists have been pursuing.

Saturday, 12 February 2005 - 9:31 PM EST

>>>The Christians in our govt are trying to pass legislation limiting the rights of homosexuals - the whole point of this argument. This is the example of oppression that I am reffering to.

Are you saying lawfully elected congressmen, who happen to be Christian, are oppressing people by using their informed conscience when casting a vote on a contentious issue?!? Boy, these days, the definition of "oppression" is easily met, isn't it? If you don't get what you want, you are, de facto, being oppressed. Give me a break.


>>>How 'bout a comment on the fact that the existence of the Earth is the only irrefutable evidence of divine revelation.
Well, I guess is the most general sense, the existence of the universe is a form of divine revelation. But most people would define the term as the unveiling of God's plan for humanity. In that regard, divine relevation is only available through the scriptures and Catholic Tradition.

BTW: if you believe that the Earth is a form of divine relevation, then you are conceding that God, is in fact, knowable.

>>>Your reference to NAMBLA totally disregards my position that we are talking about two consenting ADULTS. NAMBLA has no argument with regard to my position - their name proves that.
Not at all. Remember, pedophilia is a relationship between an adult and a PRE-PUBESCENT child. If the male is past puberty, than it is a homosexual relationship with a minor. The point is that NAMBLA advocates both and in regard to minors, has used the same arguments as the pro-gay marriage groups. What is the difference between two same-sex consenting adults wanting to get married and a 50 year old man and a 17 year old boy? I don't think anyone would argue that a 17 yo was not mature enough to consent, right? I mean, in one more year, he could vote and go to war.

Get my point? See the slippery slope? You can rationalize ANY relationship you want, even between two adult and consenting siblings. Where do you draw the line? Answer: you use "right reason" informed by morality to draw the line.


>>> This is my whole point - liberty and freedom to do what you want with out infringing on another's rights.
But nobody is infringing on gay rights because homosexuals NEVER had the right to marry anyway! That is the point. Furthermore (coming full circle), a society has a right to limit behavior that is detrimental to its well-being. This is why, until the last decade, no civilization ANYWHERE in the world has ever permitted homosexual marriages. It is only ins current era of brain-dead political correctness that governments have sacrificed right reason on the altar of immorality. And make no mistake about it: this is all about a creeping effort to undermine christian morality by those who despise everything it stands for because it limits their innate wicked impulses. So they wrap themselves in the mantle of "liberty" when the very thing they advocate would sentence millions to spiritual slavery and depravation.

Saturday, 12 February 2005 - 9:40 PM EST

Do we really need to go over this ground yet again? If the bible was a "political document", one would expect that it would have been substantially revised by every nation and/or religion over the course of history. As I have pointed out before, all versions of the bible agree 90% of the time. That is simply remarkable and reflects a timelessness that nothing else can match---certainly not politics.


As for books being edited out: again, all bibles agree 90% of the time. Not ever book meets the standard for divine wisdom, just as not every scientific theory is valid. If anything, it shows how the Judeo-Christian community has jealously guarded sacred scripture FROM those who would seek to revamp the bible to serve political ends. Hence the reason why J-C religion needs to go before the radicals can fully implement their reign of terror. We will not bend, not even over the course of millinia. That is something to be proud of.