Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

Absolutely, a forced conversion is no conversion at all. They are trying to change human nature and that will never happen. They falsely think that the objection to homosexuality is part of cultural conditioning. So they think if they can change the cultural's perception people will accept it. But BF Skinner's psychology of behaviorism is fundamentally flawed, we are not entirely a product of our environment. It does influence us but not to the degree that he assumed, there are things about human nature that are fixed and immutable. We all instinctively recognize homosexuality as an aberration to the normal course of sexuality, we can't force it to be the norm. Even the homosexual recognizes this, it's what motivates them to seek acceptance. They feel instinctively outside the normal course of things and want to be a part of it. Listen to their arguments and rhetoric and you will see this theme underlies everything they do. Guilt is another factor that comes into play because their consciences torment them. And then they falsley base their morality on the morality of popular opinion; if enough people say it's ok then it must be Ok.

So you can see that they instinctively know what we already know to be true; homosexuality is an aberration. But they are on the wrong side of the equation and are on a fool's errand to get on the right side. And I know of only one way to get on the right side, change. And not everybody else but you.

There in lies the heart of the issue, we don't define marriage we describe it. Let me explain, we would all agree that humans have rights, yes. But what if I asked; what is a human? You probably would respond by pointing to someone and saying, one of those. You would describe it. But what if I held up a glass of water and said it's one of these, at that point I'm defining my glass of water. And hopefully you would be smart enough to say, no it's not.

And so it is with marriage. We are asking the question; What is marriage? We answer the question by describing it. We point to something and say it's one of those. What we shouldn't do is hold up anything we fancy and say it's one of these. What something is lies in the nature of the object not in what we say it is. We may give it a name to distinguish it from other things but what it is remains the same. It would be foolish to gather a handful of various objects and say they are all the same thing when a simple observation tells you otherwise.

Now people enter into all different kinds of relationships, some political, business, personal etc etc. But to say all those relationships are the same thing and therefore demand equal treatment under the law is just foolish. I doubt anyone one would agree that you should treat a business partner the same as your spouse or your kid like a political partner.

Therefore the real issue with "gay marriage" is not legality but acceptance. Homosexual are allowed to enter into relationships, they do it all the time, often with ceremonies. What they are really after is public acceptance of their relationship and they want to use the force of law to make that happen. And we all know that to use the force of law to make someone accept something they conscientiously object to is just wrong

I think we would all agree that CD is a great place to debate, can I get an amen? :-)

I think you make a good point and a disturbing one at that. Although America is strong militarily, it is intellectually weak. This is precisly were we are losing the battle and our freedom. When we think foreigners have rights and privileges in our country, especially rights to plot our demise, we can no longer defend ourselves. Because we become more concerned about protecting them instead of us. Political correctness will kill us and the process has already started. I hope we as a people wake up before its to late because ideas do have consequences.

That's a funny story. But in my opinion you all ways do what is right, regardless the consequences. However things can get a little sticky because what is right is not always what it appears to be. Because if telling the truth leads to a greater evil than I would say lie to protect the innocent.

But in this incident what evil will come of telling the truth? I don't see any other than someone might be offended. But that's the price for freedom of speech. And I would rather have people be offended than not have the right to speak freely. However, with freedom comes responsibility. That means being respectful and not needlessly offending.

So tell the truth so long as innocent people don't get hurt and speak the truth with respect.

Hellfire is a metaphor and a metaphor always point to a greater reality. If what is said about hell is true I could not possible wish anyone to go there. it is my hope that all men would receive mercy, but in this life sometimes justice must be satisfied especially when it comes to homicide. If a man is found quilty in a court of law I say fry him.

Well if they are trying to win converts and improve their public image they are failing miserably. Because a forced conversion is no conversion and they certainly aren't endearing themselves to the masses. So what are they trying to accomplish? If its making people hate them and their religion they are doing a good job at it. I'm more persuaded by someone who gives his life than someone who takes life. The first has a stronger conviction and that's persuasive. The second dosn't think his conviction can stand on its own so he has to use force to prop it up. That's not something i'm willing to believe and I wont even if I'm forced to.

No more so than the rest of us. That was the great problem our Founding Fathers struggled with. They knew you couldn't trust the people and you couldn't trust the leaders but more importantly they knew they couldn't trust themselves. And that's our down fall today, we have way to much self esteem. Pride is deadly and if we're going restore this once great nation we need to restore the understanding of human nature our Founding Fathers had. We need to see ourselves as we really are, croocked to the core but with a nice veneer so people will like us.

I did say I read this but you missed my point. It says it's intent is to; to

16 provide health insurance coverage for eligible individuals

I don't know how else you interpret "provide" Of course it has to be defined how it does that, but that it does it is the important point.

gcomeau,

Teaching is obviously not your forte; insult is.