Big Joke

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Conservatives on campus typically try to force their morality on others. This is wrong for three reasons:
--attempting to legislate matters of moral arbitration defeats the purpose of morality, killing the potential for morality. Morality may only be achieved through free will.
--using the government as a tool of moral enforcement inflates it. This is bad.
--morality is subjective.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

THIS is the funniest thing in this section.

[jakelo]

Another funny thing is, today in one of my classes, there was a class discussion on the Republican and the Democratic party. Obviously the democrats in our class are liberal. As an example of a difference in the two parties, I said that generally, conservative republicans base their decisions on morals and what is generally right, and that liberals...are immoral (courtesy of the professor). The liberals didn't really like that .

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

lol

[kateliz]

Don't liberals only have one moral? That of liberality? Liberate the homosexuals! Liberate the trees! Liberate the oppressed blacks! Liberate the pregnant women! Liberate the lazy! I don't want to be too simplistic about this, and I understand I am in many ways, but I thought of that while reading jakelo's post and thought I'd share it.

But of course, liberating things isn't always moral, even if liberty is. There's a big difference between liberty and liberality. And it's funny though, liberty is dependent on morality, whereas liberality is dependent, generally, on immorality!

[puritan lad]

Don't forget liberating your hard earned money from your wallet to pay for the other liberations.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Don't liberals only have one moral? That of liberality? Liberate the homosexuals! Liberate the trees! Liberate the oppressed blacks! Liberate the pregnant women! Liberate the lazy! I don't want to be too simplistic about this, and I understand I am in many ways, but I thought of that while reading jakelo's post and thought I'd share it.

But of course, liberating things isn't always moral, even if liberty is. There's a big difference between liberty and liberality. And it's funny though, liberty is dependent on morality, whereas liberality is dependent, generally, on immorality!

I assume you think homosexuality is immoral. But let me ask you, would it be ok to drag a homosexual man through the streets and then beat him till he has to be hospitalized.
The problem is that people will exhibit anger to the individual and not the act. This is where liberals come in as ask, is this not hypocracy to dehumanize certain individuals?

[bizzt]

Don't liberals only have one moral? That of liberality? Liberate the homosexuals! Liberate the trees! Liberate the oppressed blacks! Liberate the pregnant women! Liberate the lazy! I don't want to be too simplistic about this, and I understand I am in many ways, but I thought of that while reading jakelo's post and thought I'd share it.

But of course, liberating things isn't always moral, even if liberty is. There's a big difference between liberty and liberality. And it's funny though, liberty is dependent on morality, whereas liberality is dependent, generally, on immorality!

I assume you think homosexuality is immoral. But let me ask you, would it be ok to drag a homosexual man through the streets and then beat him till he has to be hospitalized.
The problem is that people will exhibit anger to the individual and not the act. This is where liberals come in as ask, is this not hypocracy to dehumanize certain individuals?

I would say Homosexuality is immoral. I would definately speak out about any kind of Violence towards those who are immoral. It is only Christ that has saved me.

As for Liberals tell me what do you think of Homosexuals getting Married. That here in Canada is a real life issue! The Liberal Government has decided to vote that the Bill be passed and now Homosexuals can Legally be Married.

[Jbuza]

I assume you think homosexuality is immoral. But let me ask you, would it be ok to drag a homosexual man through the streets and then beat him till he has to be hospitalized.
The problem is that people will exhibit anger to the individual and not the act. This is where liberals come in as ask, is this not hypocracy to dehumanize certain individuals?

That's funny. One day a priest walked into a bar and said, "God reigned fire down on sodom and Gomorrah", and the barkeeper said "yeah well God destroyed the whole earth becuase of the wicked abominations that man did by a flood." The Patrons all slurred "but were athiests there isn't anything wrong. After all if a homosexual can just be born that way; Than why are we descriminating against the pedafiles."

This worldview when it becomes largely accepted, and the morality that he bible teaches gets fully discarded by humanity, then the Spirit of God will no longer strive with men. If their is hope and a God I will be walking in the halls of my fathers kingdom.

I know that it would be a hate crime by the law of the land to do as you query, but I don't think it would be wrong to pass a law to hang pedafiles, and Jail homosexuals. But when you base right on wrong on nothing, and everything is the result of accidental chemistry, why inhibit anything? Lets war, rape, and pillage there is no moral compass; we are the kings of the universe. I am sure that if Jesus came across a prostitute that was going to be lawfully stoned to death, and he forgave her, and rebuked her, and sent her on her way, that he has forgivness waiting for all mannar of evil things that have come from the hearts of Men.

Then the bartender said "what's this let me return you to your regularly scheduled program.

[Jbuza]

Don't liberals only have one moral? That of liberality? Liberate the homosexuals! Liberate the trees! Liberate the oppressed blacks! Liberate the pregnant women! Liberate the lazy! I don't want to be too simplistic about this, and I understand I am in many ways, but I thought of that while reading jakelo's post and thought I'd share it.

But of course, liberating things isn't always moral, even if liberty is. There's a big difference between liberty and liberality. And it's funny though, liberty is dependent on morality, whereas liberality is dependent, generally, on immorality!

I assume you think homosexuality is immoral. But let me ask you, would it be ok to drag a homosexual man through the streets and then beat him till he has to be hospitalized.
The problem is that people will exhibit anger to the individual and not the act. This is where liberals come in as ask, is this not hypocracy to dehumanize certain individuals?

I would say Homosexuality is immoral. I would definately speak out about any kind of Violence towards those who are immoral. It is only Christ that has saved me.

As for Liberals tell me what do you think of Homosexuals getting Married. That here in Canada is a real life issue! The Liberal Government has decided to vote that the Bill be passed and now Homosexuals can Legally be Married.

LOL that's a great one, but did you hear the one about how the immoral country turned away from God, and he stopped blessing them? That's even better, like the one about the USA that is similar you must of heard that, that's been around. Old Joke.

Who knows the liberal democrats are on their way out here, Problem is to many wolf in sheeps clothing liberal republicans in the bunch. I heard that the conservatives have power back, and are tipping the power of the supreme court back to right thinking.

Then the monkey said "I was driving" The cop looked in the back and Darwin was wearing a dunce cap

[bizzt]

Don't liberals only have one moral? That of liberality? Liberate the homosexuals! Liberate the trees! Liberate the oppressed blacks! Liberate the pregnant women! Liberate the lazy! I don't want to be too simplistic about this, and I understand I am in many ways, but I thought of that while reading jakelo's post and thought I'd share it.

But of course, liberating things isn't always moral, even if liberty is. There's a big difference between liberty and liberality. And it's funny though, liberty is dependent on morality, whereas liberality is dependent, generally, on immorality!

I assume you think homosexuality is immoral. But let me ask you, would it be ok to drag a homosexual man through the streets and then beat him till he has to be hospitalized.
The problem is that people will exhibit anger to the individual and not the act. This is where liberals come in as ask, is this not hypocracy to dehumanize certain individuals?

I would say Homosexuality is immoral. I would definately speak out about any kind of Violence towards those who are immoral. It is only Christ that has saved me.

As for Liberals tell me what do you think of Homosexuals getting Married. That here in Canada is a real life issue! The Liberal Government has decided to vote that the Bill be passed and now Homosexuals can Legally be Married.

LOL that's a great one, but did you hear the one about how the immoral country turned away from God, and he stopped blessing them? That's even better, like the one about the USA that is similar you must of heard that, that's been around. Old Joke.

Who knows the liberal democrats are on their way out here, Problem is to many wolf in sheeps clothing liberal republicans in the bunch. I heard that the conservatives have power back, and are tipping the power of the supreme court back to right thinking.

Then the monkey said "I was driving" The cop looked in the back and Darwin was wearing a dunce cap

Are you in Canada?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Don't liberals only have one moral? That of liberality? Liberate the homosexuals! Liberate the trees! Liberate the oppressed blacks! Liberate the pregnant women! Liberate the lazy! I don't want to be too simplistic about this, and I understand I am in many ways, but I thought of that while reading jakelo's post and thought I'd share it.

But of course, liberating things isn't always moral, even if liberty is. There's a big difference between liberty and liberality. And it's funny though, liberty is dependent on morality, whereas liberality is dependent, generally, on immorality!

I assume you think homosexuality is immoral. But let me ask you, would it be ok to drag a homosexual man through the streets and then beat him till he has to be hospitalized.
The problem is that people will exhibit anger to the individual and not the act. This is where liberals come in as ask, is this not hypocracy to dehumanize certain individuals?

I would say Homosexuality is immoral. I would definately speak out about any kind of Violence towards those who are immoral. It is only Christ that has saved me.

As for Liberals tell me what do you think of Homosexuals getting Married. That here in Canada is a real life issue! The Liberal Government has decided to vote that the Bill be passed and now Homosexuals can Legally be Married.

Now even if homosexuals are born that way or not it can be seen that the institution of marraige is meant for the creation of a family. Laws are meant to keep society healthy and maintainable. Sometimes liberals do go too far, but you still understand my position don't you?

In politics things will sway back and forth over a position of equilibrium. Unfortunately your local government has swayed too far, but it can be assured that eventually it will swing back too far the other way.

[Jbuza]

Don't liberals only have one moral? That of liberality? Liberate the homosexuals! Liberate the trees! Liberate the oppressed blacks! Liberate the pregnant women! Liberate the lazy! I don't want to be too simplistic about this, and I understand I am in many ways, but I thought of that while reading jakelo's post and thought I'd share it.

But of course, liberating things isn't always moral, even if liberty is. There's a big difference between liberty and liberality. And it's funny though, liberty is dependent on morality, whereas liberality is dependent, generally, on immorality!

I assume you think homosexuality is immoral. But let me ask you, would it be ok to drag a homosexual man through the streets and then beat him till he has to be hospitalized.
The problem is that people will exhibit anger to the individual and not the act. This is where liberals come in as ask, is this not hypocracy to dehumanize certain individuals?

I would say Homosexuality is immoral. I would definately speak out about any kind of Violence towards those who are immoral. It is only Christ that has saved me.

As for Liberals tell me what do you think of Homosexuals getting Married. That here in Canada is a real life issue! The Liberal Government has decided to vote that the Bill be passed and now Homosexuals can Legally be Married.

LOL that's a great one, but did you hear the one about how the immoral country turned away from God, and he stopped blessing them? That's even better, like the one about the USA that is similar you must of heard that, that's been around. Old Joke.

Who knows the liberal democrats are on their way out here, Problem is to many wolf in sheeps clothing liberal republicans in the bunch. I heard that the conservatives have power back, and are tipping the power of the supreme court back to right thinking.

Then the monkey said "I was driving" The cop looked in the back and Darwin was wearing a dunce cap

Are you in Canada?

No, but life in the US isn't so different

[bizzt]

Don't liberals only have one moral? That of liberality? Liberate the homosexuals! Liberate the trees! Liberate the oppressed blacks! Liberate the pregnant women! Liberate the lazy! I don't want to be too simplistic about this, and I understand I am in many ways, but I thought of that while reading jakelo's post and thought I'd share it.

But of course, liberating things isn't always moral, even if liberty is. There's a big difference between liberty and liberality. And it's funny though, liberty is dependent on morality, whereas liberality is dependent, generally, on immorality!

I assume you think homosexuality is immoral. But let me ask you, would it be ok to drag a homosexual man through the streets and then beat him till he has to be hospitalized.
The problem is that people will exhibit anger to the individual and not the act. This is where liberals come in as ask, is this not hypocracy to dehumanize certain individuals?

I would say Homosexuality is immoral. I would definately speak out about any kind of Violence towards those who are immoral. It is only Christ that has saved me.

As for Liberals tell me what do you think of Homosexuals getting Married. That here in Canada is a real life issue! The Liberal Government has decided to vote that the Bill be passed and now Homosexuals can Legally be Married.

Now even if homosexuals are born that way or not it can be seen that the institution of marraige is meant for the creation of a family. Laws are meant to keep society healthy and maintainable. Sometimes liberals do go too far, but you still understand my position don't you?

In politics things will sway back and forth over a position of equilibrium. Unfortunately your local government has swayed too far, but it can be assured that eventually it will swing back too far the other way.

Agreed

[kateliz]

I assume you think homosexuality is immoral. But let me ask you, would it be ok to drag a homosexual man through the streets and then beat him till he has to be hospitalized.
The problem is that people will exhibit anger to the individual and not the act. This is where liberals come in as ask, is this not hypocracy to dehumanize certain individuals?

Hmm. Coming to see your point. After all, it was hypocritical of me to beat that lesbian I met after telling her God loves her and wants her to repent so He can forgive her. The liberal standing nearby was right about that! Guess I was wrong; I'm sorry. Maybe I should just go back to loudly crying out how they're going to hell, like I was doing before that incident. At least that would be Christian and nonhypocritical of me.

My point, BGood, is that you came on too strong and were unreasonable. Do you honestly believe I'd do somthing like that just because I'm obviously not a liberal? Are all conservatives really going to put all homosexuals in the hospital?

Cause I mean, we all know homosexuals are really variations of that one frog that can change it's gender; they aren't human at all- and I believe we should start using them for disection in school science classes.

Your generalizations are, frankly, ubsurd. I hope you can see that now!

And now that that's taken care of, I admire your view on how "the institution of marraige is meant for the creation of a family." Not enough people understand that.

I would like to continue this discussion with you to get more of your views, but I want to respect the stay-on-topic rule, but am too lazy to start a new thread!