Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Would you agree that there are certain types of conduct that we can legitimately object to?
Sure. Murder, rape, torture, theft. These are behaviours which are universally condemned.
Homosexuality is mostly condemned by Christians/Muslim zealots and 'heterosexual' men who have had feelings of attraction to other men and are having extreme difficulty dealing with it.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
If so, then it merely becomes a matter of deciding which is which. Stirring speeches about liberty and freedom are just a distraction.
Actually, no. This issue is all about liberty and freedom. It is about the radical Christian right attempting to impose their faith-based agenda on everyone else, and everyone else standing up and saying that we value liberty and freedom over a policy informed by a faith which we do not share.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
The problem I have with liberals is they want to put certain subjects off the table for debate, while they are perfectly happy to tell me what to do on other issues. That is the crux of the PC debate.
I'll let the PC dig pass
. I've tried as hard as I can to voice my disgust for PC multi-culti 'culture of victimization' politics.
I do know what you mean, but there's really no subject that's off the table for debate. The radical lefties to whom you refer are just as marginal as the radical Christians. However, any subject which the religious right tries to debate in terms of their faith-based beliefs will ultimately prove undebatable, just like the existence of God is for them. It's interesting that the radical Christians have taken to objecting to the left by saying that their beliefs are dismissed simply because they're Christians. Actually, yes. We simply don't have that unyielding, magically known belief in Jesus Christ as the Saviour of all Men and the One who died so that our Sins could be expiated. It's actually quite weird that anyone would think that their faith-based beliefs would be accepted by those who don't have the faith.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I'm sure there are plenty of democrats who think homosexuality is a perversion. But they will not be running for any office as democrats. Anything less than total and enthusiastic acceptance of the gay agenda puts them badly out of step with the party leadership. So I think it is totally fair to say they "celebrate" homosexual conduct. How would you describe them? Luke warm? Grudging in their acceptance?
This paragraph might seem, to someone who doesn't know you, like an attempt to cloud the issue. The simple fact is this - many people think that homosexuality is a perversion, yet support anyone's right to act in a homosexual manner,
for idealistic reasons. Whether or not politicians publicly support homosexuals while privately condemning their behaviour doesn't have anything to do with whether or not 'all democrats celebrate homosexuals', which was your original assertion. That assertion is obviously untrue. To suggest that democrats who privately feel homosexuality is a perversion support any individual's right to make their own choices
strictly to be in step with the party does a great disservice to both Democrats and Republicans who value the ideal of freedom. It is quite puzzling that you would think you know the thoughts of every democrat who is in favour of gay rights. But then... maybe not, as radical Christians believe that they have all sorts of knowledge for which no proof is needed.
