Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[Nineveh]

Alright, I will be relatively brief because I haven't read the whole debate and, given that this thing is 164 pages of posts long, I hope you will forgive me for that.

It seems as though most of you are thinking that the law should be based on the Bible- correct me if I'm wrong. Now, one must look at the fact that America, while a predominantly Christian nation, is supposed to embrace people- even if their ideas are different.

There are limits to that however. Some think it's ok to rape, murder or eat people.

Now, the United States also believes in separation of church and state.

There is no such provision in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. The limit on government is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Now, just because your religion prohibits something doesn't mean that the laws ought be against it. Some things are unquestionably morally wrong (to the majority)- such as murder, rape, adultry etc.

Adultery isn't against the law any more

But because this nation was founded by a majority of Christians, the rights we have are claimed to be given by Nature's God. Murder, rape, kidnapping, adultery should all be illegal, even if pagans agree or disagree with it. But alas, the pagans are in control, so one by one, those things that are sinful and unlawful are now becoming lawful. IE adultery and murder.

and then there are others that are subject to personal or religious beliefs- marriage, homosexuality etc. And as such- the things that are subject to personal/religious beliefs shouldn't be that which we base laws upon. You aren't looking at the big picture if you think that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Christianity isn't the only religion on the plant, you know, and while it is the largest, one must take a look at other religions. What of the whole concept of "Live Free or Die?" America was based on religious freedom. Or, rather, the desire for it. So why should you force everyone to live by your religious dictum? That's not freedom. That's tyrrany.

You want to remove the moral foundation that underpins the freedoms we have. When you do that, you remove the Authority that gave us those rights. The Consitution does not grant the right of immorality. The founders speak at great length about the importance of remaining a moral and vigilant people or we will lose the Republic. That's exactly what is happening the less vigilant and less moral/more tolerant of immorality we become.

 

[Nazaroo]

Maybe they could become Catholic priests, or nuns? They certainly have no use for gentalia.


Couldn't "they" be referring to the virgins in this verse? It's at least a possibility. I am admittedly probably wrong in this case. I did think (at least used to think) that the term "virgins" in the Bible always referred to women. The (possible) confusion could probably be resolved by looking at the original Greek text...don't they use gender-specific terms for "they?" Anyways, thanks for the reference BigMouthNana. :thumb:

There is a large body of literature on this verse, mainly because the Jehovah's Witlesses decided to build a special doctrine around their own peculiar misunderstanding of Revelation.

Not to worry, we can certainly get at the parsing of the text, for instance right here:

http://www.biblicalgreek.com/index.php?next=0&ba=gram_search&bible_book=&clean_lemma=parqenoV

Here you will see that 'virgin' (parthenos) occurs in the NT about 14 times.

four times in Matthew (3 times in chapter 25 in the parable of the virgins)

twice in Luke (1:27 2x and Acts 21:9, once)

six times in 1Cor chapter 7,

once in 2Cor 11:2,

and once in Revelation 14:4. If you go to the link above, and click on 'next' you will get to the second page of instances wherein is the Revelation reference at the bottom in Greek and English.

If you hover your mouse over the Greek, a yellow box appears that automatically parses the Greek word here, telling you that it is a Nominative Plural Masculine Noun. That is "Virgin Men".

The full text is,

'outoi eisin oi meta gunaikwn ouk emolunqhsan parqenoi gar eisin" (use symbol font to see this in Greek)

"These are they that with women are not contaminated, for they are virgin men."



Hope this helps your quest. But please, consult someone before anybody cuts off their nards at home. This is not advised.

 

[Army of One]

Off the subject, but it was just a little disturbing, considering the subject thread, to see the avatar with the guy and his sheep.

Wow, your mind must be in the gutter. That image is a "sheep-attack", plain and simple (look at the terror in Buster's expression). :chuckle:

 

[karstkid]

Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

Absolutely not! A homosexual should get the death penalty only if he or she committed a crime worthy of death, such as homicide. If you were to give homosexuals the death penalty for commiting homosexual acts then you would have to give: pedofiles, rapist, adulterers, fornicators, mediums and spiritists, incestual parents, partakers in beastiality, or anyone who curses his or her father and/or mother should also be put to death. All of these other than homosexual sins are spoken of in one biblical chapter, i.e., Leviticus chapter 20. Don't get me wrong homosexuality is wrong even evil. But, adultery, e.g., is no less evil according to the Scriptures. I think we go wrong in a death-to-homosexuals campain. Homosexuals are in our face in a bold way. Whereas adultery is not. When was the last time you heard of an "Adulterers Pride Week". The boldness and brazeness of some homosexuals gets under our skin and brings us much anger. This anger though can color our reading of Scripture causing us to read into Scripture what is not there. Therefore, saying "the death penalty for all homosexuals" is due to personal anger and not Scripture.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Thats sick. You shouldnt vote "no" if you believe homosexuals are evil! Your all saying you dont have the guts to kill someone, so youll just leave it to God. I voted "no" becuase homos are normal people. They are angry becuase you hate and discreminate agianst them! Duh! If you treated them normally they would act normally.

 

[Nineveh]

Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

Absolutely not! A homosexual should get the death penalty only if he or she committed a crime worthy of death, such as homicide.

Does intentionally giving someone AIDS count?

pedofiles, rapist,...partakers in beastiality

I totally agree! They should be put to death.

fornicators

Why?

All of these other than homosexual sins are spoken of in one biblical chapter, i.e., Leviticus chapter 20.

But not all that you listed called for the death penalty.

The boldness and brazeness of some homosexuals gets under our skin and brings us much anger. This anger though can color our reading of Scripture causing us to read into Scripture what is not there. Therefore, saying "the death penalty for all homosexuals" is due to personal anger and not Scripture.

God called for their execution. Perhaps one of the reasons is because of the way you point out they act. They aren't only in our faces, but our children's faces too.

 

[Nineveh]

Thats sick. You shouldnt vote "no" if you believe homosexuals are evil! Your all saying you dont have the guts to kill someone, so youll just leave it to God. I voted "no" becuase homos are normal people. They are angry becuase you hate and discreminate agianst them! Duh! If you treated them normally they would act normally.

"Act normally"? It's not "nomal" to cruise parks to pick up a 5 minute date. It's not "normal" to parade down the street with your bottom hanging out. It's not "normal" to want to introduce kids to sex. It's not "normal" to put child rapists around kids.

I can't really see where these actions would be curtailed by tolerance. But I can see where they would get worse.

 

[Real Sorceror]

"Act normally"? It's not "nomal" to cruise parks to pick up a 5 minute date. It's not "normal" to parade down the street with your bottom hanging out. It's not "normal" to want to introduce kids to sex. It's not "normal" to put child rapists around kids. I can't really see where these actions would be curtailed by tolerance. But I can see where they would get worse.

You actually believe all homosexual automatically=child molestor? Sure, there are some sick ones, just like there are messed up straight people. The vast majority of them are normal people. I'm friends with several homosexuals, one of my professors was a lesbian. They are all normal people. They are not rapists, perverts, or sodomisers. Your judging them based on false beliefs and assumptions.

 

[Evee]

"Act normally"? It's not "nomal" to cruise parks to pick up a 5 minute date. It's not "normal" to parade down the street with your bottom hanging out. It's not "normal" to want to introduce kids to sex. It's not "normal" to put child rapists around kids.

I can't really see where these actions would be curtailed by tolerance. But I can see where they would get worse.

They are not all that way are they?

 

[Real Sorceror]

They are not all that way are they?

No, but some people would like to believe that.

 

[Sentinel]

There are limits to that however. Some think it's ok to rape, murder or eat people.[/quote

Of course- I am well aware of that and have stated exactly this in other places.

There is no such provision in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. The limit on government is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

These are quotes from the "Father of the Constitution"- James Madison and just because it does not explicitly say those words in the Constitution does not mean that they certainly were not the intent nor the implied meaning.

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others." (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).


"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself" (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Adultery isn't against the law any more

Well, be that as it may. *shrug*

But because this nation was founded by a majority of Christians, the rights we have are claimed to be given by Nature's God. Murder, rape, kidnapping, adultery should all be illegal, even if pagans agree or disagree with it. But alas, the pagans are in control, so one by one, those things that are sinful and unlawful are now becoming lawful. IE adultery and murder.

Welcome to America: Land of the FREE

You want to remove the moral foundation that underpins the freedoms we have. When you do that, you remove the Authority that gave us those rights. The Consitution does not grant the right of immorality. The founders speak at great length about the importance of remaining a moral and vigilant people or we will lose the Republic. That's exactly what is happening the less vigilant and less moral/more tolerant of immorality we become.

I am not advocating that we remove morality, I am advocating that just because you Christians believe something is wrong doesn't make it wrong. Murder and rape etc. are wrong in *MOST* religions and to the vast majority of people, its wrong. So with such broad support, then it is certainly right to have those laws. However, to base law- which ought be impartial- solely on the views of individuals that represent one section of our population would defeat the purpose that the original founders of this country set forth to defend.

 

[Nineveh]

You actually believe all homosexual automatically=child molestor?

No, I don't believe all homo molest kids.

What I do believe, because I have noticed a trend, is that it's very hard for a homo to come right out and say molestation is wrong. Add to that the careless attitude of the San Diego homos putting child molesters around kids. They actually defended their actions instead of dismissing the homos. And then the aganda playing out in public schools...

So while all homos aren't child molesters, they certainly keep each other's company.

Sure, there are some sick ones, just like there are messed up straight people. The vast majority of them are normal people.

Normal folks do not do as I described.

I'm friends with several homosexuals, one of my professors was a lesbian. They are all normal people. They are not rapists, perverts, or sodomisers.

I know quite a few homos myself. None of them are normal, and yes, they are sodomites. Most of the ones I know are fomo (female homos). Without exception they are either mentally or physically abusive or victims of the abuse.

Your judging them based on false beliefs and assumptions.

Actually, it appears it was you that just made an incorrect judgement. I can only judge by what I know of the situations.

 

[Nineveh]

No, but some people would like to believe that.

All the ones who misuse public bathrooms are. All the ones who cruise the parks are. All the ones who push the agenda on kids are. All the ones who put kids around child rapists are...

Either a good majority of the 2% of homos are like this or that very few sure do get around.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Hmmm, then perhaps our good and bad experiances have coloured our vision. I would ask you to answer this Nineveh, then I'll leave it alone: If the government where to try and pass this as a law, would you vote yes?

 

[Nineveh]

Of course- I am well aware of that and have stated exactly this in other places.

Good

These are quotes from the "Father of the Constitution"- James Madison and just because it does not explicitly say those words in the Constitution does not mean that they certainly were not the intent nor the implied meaning.

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others." (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).


"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself" (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

You really shouldn't rely upon just one of the founders for your proof, or ignore the context of their quotes. The issue is much larger than that. There were 173 men involved in developing the founding documents for this nation. Even the ones you can quote never intened for this to be a nation where people had to check their beliefs at the door to hold public office or mean to have every vestage of religion removed from the public square. Which is where this "seperation" idea has lead us.

Welcome to America: Land of the FREE

This was never intended to be a land of anarchy. But when we remove the Authority behind the Bill of Rights, that's what we get.

I am not advocating that we remove morality, I am advocating that just because you Christians believe something is wrong doesn't make it wrong.

Who gets to define morality since you seem to think Christians got it wrong (even though it's brought us 200 years)? What happens when all the pagans can't agree what is actually moral and what isn't? Who gets to set the standard, the majority? If so, what if the majority wanted to legalize murdering babies?

Murder and rape etc. are wrong in *MOST* religions and to the vast majority of people, its wrong. So with such broad support, then it is certainly right to have those laws.

Maybe, I guess that all depends on what the majority might want.

However, to base law- which ought be impartial-

I think you mean it should be applied impartially, right? Because the law has to be biased against criminal behavior.

solely on the views of individuals that represent one section of our population would defeat the purpose that the original founders of this country set forth to defend.

You don't seem to understand.

The law isn't based on what Christians believe. It's supposed to be based on God's ideas. (God is that same Authority behind the Bill of Rights.) That takes it out of our hands and makes it biased toward criminal behavior instead of impartial to the whims of a majority. God's law doesn't change, but men's morality changes like the wind.

 

[Nineveh]

Hmmm, then perhaps our good and bad experiances have coloured our vision. I would ask you to answer this Nineveh, then I'll leave it alone: If the government where to try and pass this as a law, would you vote yes?

I would support recriminalizing homosexuality.

 

[Morpheus]

I would support recriminalizing homosexuality.

We Christians have gotten a bad rep, not because we stand for what we believe, but because so many of us are hateful in our expression of our beliefs. Since we have been strongly instructed to love our brothers and love our enemies it seems a bit hypocritical to go around wreaking of hate all the time. Shouldn't our efforts be directed toward winning the lost to Christ? Isn't that kind of difficult when we're continually screaming at them how much we hate them and wish they were dead? Wouldn't it be prudent to first look to ourselves and spend as much time and effort critiqueing our own behaviors as we have spent criticizing others? Christ didn't drive sinners away; he attracted them to himself. In fact, about the only people he lost his cool with was the holier-than-thou, self-righteous religious leaders. But what can we learn from him?

 

[Sentinel]

You really shouldn't rely upon just one of the founders for your proof, or ignore the context of their quotes. The issue is much larger than that. There were 173 men involved in developing the founding documents for this nation. Even the ones you can quote never intened for this to be a nation where people had to check their beliefs at the door to hold public office or mean to have every vestage of religion removed from the public square. Which is where this "seperation" idea has lead us.

I am not saying that all religion ought be removed and that everything should be secularized- I am saying that just because one group believes something does not mean that it ought to be law. I am saying that *all* ought to be taken into account. I am not implying that I agree with people secularizing Christmas (despite that it's a stolen holiday) or trying to remove prayer from schools. In fact, I encourage prayer in schools, so long as it's not lead by a teacher and any religion may express itself through prayer in schools. So don't take me as saying that we ought to ban religion from those in office, I am saying that it ought not be narrow-minded people that don't look at other people's beliefs before making laws. And no, I am not accusing you of this- your points are intelligent, if dogmatic, and I have respect for you, so please don't take this personally.

This was never intended to be a land of anarchy. But when we remove the Authority behind the Bill of Rights, that's what we get.

There are a great number of religions out there who's beliefs concur with the Bill of Rights. Just because Christianity says something doesn't mean there aren't other beliefs that mirror that or even have similar beliefs- it is where these beliefs converge and intermingle and become one that we have truth and that is where morals can be found and agreed upon as law. It shouldn't be just religious morals, however, and no matter what you have, you won't be able to please everybody, I am not thinking that it is possible to. But there are things that religions do have in common and things they disagree upon. And those things that are disagreed upon should be debated and discussed and a compromise reached before law is taken from the morals backing it. I am not taking away the authority behind the Bill of Rights, I am asking people not to simply look at it from their own viewpoint as opposed to considering all others involved.

Who gets to define morality since you seem to think Christians got it wrong (even though it's brought us 200 years)? What happens when all the pagans can't agree what is actually moral and what isn't? Who gets to set the standard, the majority? If so, what if the majority wanted to legalize murdering babies?

I can only assume that you are discussing abortion, given the nature of this forum. And that is not an arguement for this time and place- but if the majority things something ought be legalized then it reflects the wants of the general populace. While an individual might be against it, that does not mean that your personal morals ought be enforced upon the larger body of humanity. The way of America is to please the majority of it's citizens. Now, the majority of the citizens of the United States are decent people, even if they aren't up to your lofty moral standards- so usually laws reflect this. There are laws I disagree with, certainly, and I am sure that everyone has at least one or two laws that they don't particularly like. But overall, the majority of them are fine with me, as well as most others. The problem comes when a law is disliked by the vocal few and debated hotly.

Maybe, I guess that all depends on what the majority might want.

See the above discussion.

I think you mean it should be applied impartially, right? Because the law has to be biased against criminal behavior.

It being baised against what we consider 'criminal' is what law is for- I am saying that laws ought be impartial to religious views beyond those that established it, since all morality stems from religion. It is impossible to completely separate the two and I recognize this, but I think what I said is clear and requires no more discussion.

The law isn't based on what Christians believe. It's supposed to be based on God's ideas. (God is that same Authority behind the Bill of Rights.) That takes it out of our hands and makes it biased toward criminal behavior instead of impartial to the whims of a majority. God's law doesn't change, but men's morality changes like the wind.

God's ideas *are* what Christians believe in so you are essentially discrediting yourself in those first two sentances of this paragraph. God is not the authority behind the Bill of Rights, mankind is behind the Bill of Rights. I don't see God as having been elected president nor on the list of the Framers of the Constitution. Yes, they were all Christian, but they advocated freedom of religion and freedom from opression so while they were working from a Christian viewpoint, they left it open to other ideas. Morality does not change like the wind, it changes gradually over decades. And while "God's Law" does not change, the perception of it changes regularly. Especially when you start getting into interpretations, and that is something that most Christians can't agree on. I am not Christian in any way, but I believe that murder etc. is wrong- it is not based on Christian beliefs but on my own moral standards which, I assure you, are higher than most anyone else. I am not saying that I am in any way better than anyone, I am just saying that I hold myself to obscenely high standards. Now, the 'whims' of the majority are usually concurant and don't change quickly- so it is not so fragile as you might consider it to be.

 

[Nineveh]

We Christians have gotten a bad rep, not because we stand for what we believe, but because so many of us are hateful in our expression of our beliefs. Since we have been strongly instructed to love our brothers and love our enemies it seems a bit hypocritical to go around wreaking of hate all the time. Shouldn't our efforts be directed toward winning the lost to Christ? Isn't that kind of difficult when we're continually screaming at them how much we hate them and wish they were dead? Wouldn't it be prudent to first look to ourselves and spend as much time and effort critiqueing our own behaviors as we have spent criticizing others? Christ didn't drive sinners away; he attracted them to himself. In fact, about the only people he lost his cool with was the holier-than-thou, self-righteous religious leaders. But what can we learn from him?

Wow, talk about a paragraph loaded with inflammatory speech.

True hate is standing by while half a million men die of AIDS. True hate tries to make homoism into something it isn't. True hate influences children into this deathstyle. True hate picks up a stanger to use for 5 minutes.

I didn't even mention the death penalty in my reply. But since you brought it up, you should consider taking your inflammatory rant to the homos who inflict the death penalty on each other.

By the way, is Christ a different God than the one in the OT?

 

[Nineveh]

I am not saying that all religion ought be removed and that everything should be secularized-

But the ignorance of history on this point has lead us to that exact place, hasn't it.

There are a great number of religions out there who's beliefs concur with the Bill of Rights. Just because Christianity says something doesn't mean there aren't other beliefs that mirror that or even have similar beliefs- it is where these beliefs converge and intermingle and become one that we have truth and that is where morals can be found and agreed upon as law. It shouldn't be just religious morals, however, and no matter what you have, you won't be able to please everybody, I am not thinking that it is possible to. But there are things that religions do have in common and things they disagree upon. And those things that are disagreed upon should be debated and discussed and a compromise reached before law is taken from the morals backing it. I am not taking away the authority behind the Bill of Rights, I am asking people not to simply look at it from their own viewpoint as opposed to considering all others involved.

You fail to realize it wasn't other religions who set up this nation. It's wasn't their god named as the Authority. Let's compare. Please provide another constitution that is at least as old as ours that grants at least the same amount of freedom.

I can only assume that you are discussing abortion, given the nature of this forum. And that is not an arguement for this time and place- but if the majority things something ought be legalized then it reflects the wants of the general populace. While an individual might be against it, that does not mean that your personal morals ought be enforced upon the larger body of humanity. The way of America is to please the majority of it's citizens. Now, the majority of the citizens of the United States are decent people, even if they aren't up to your lofty moral standards- so usually laws reflect this. There are laws I disagree with, certainly, and I am sure that everyone has at least one or two laws that they don't particularly like. But overall, the majority of them are fine with me, as well as most others. The problem comes when a law is disliked by the vocal few and debated hotly.

It being baised against what we consider 'criminal' is what law is for- I am saying that laws ought be impartial to religious views beyond those that established it, since all morality stems from religion. It is impossible to completely separate the two and I recognize this, but I think what I said is clear and requires no more discussion.

God's ideas *are* what Christians believe in so you are essentially discrediting yourself in those first two sentances of this paragraph.

At this point I think you have disregarded most of what I've said so far. I'll make this as simple as possible, and hopfully, if/when you reply we can move on.

God's morals do not change. He has a set standard. It was upon this God the majority of the founders based thier personal faith, and upon this God's Authority they wrote the founding documents.

God is not the authority behind the Bill of Rights, mankind is behind the Bill of Rights.

The more who believe this the less freedom we have. Take some time to the Mayflower Compact, Consitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration. Reading more than just one founder would help your understanding as well.

Yes, they were all Christian, but they advocated freedom of religion and freedom from opression so while they were working from a Christian viewpoint, they left it open to other ideas.

They never advocated the freedom of immorality. They knew immorality would put us on the fast track to a different form of government.

Morality does not change like the wind, it changes gradually over decades.

Eegads. Are you really willing to miss the point so easily? If so, tell me now and we can both save ourselves the time of going further with this convo.

And while "God's Law" does not change, the perception of it changes regularly.

That doesn't change God's standard.

I believe that murder etc. is wrong-

Are you pro-choice? What are your thoughs on Terri Schiavo?

but on my own moral standards which, I assure you, are higher than most anyone else.

Unfortunately for you, your standard of morality is just that, yours. You weren't around back when this nation was being founded to offer your personal "high standard of morality" for the founders to base this nation on.

I am not saying that I am in any way better than anyone, I am just saying that I hold myself to obscenely high standards. Now, the 'whims' of the majority are usually concurant and don't change quickly- so it is not so fragile as you might consider it to be.

Most pagans have a self-righteous attitude. No need to try to down play it. You might as well use it, because that's all ya got. Anyway, in 200 years we have gone from homoism being "the sin that will not be named" ( I always forget the exact words the judge used, but it was something to that effect) to "marriage". There are many more examples of our moral slide over the last 200 years. You tried your best to take issue my use of a metaphor when you should have endeavored to address the moral slide.

Anyway, have a pleasant weekend, should you be expecting a reply from me, you shall have it tomorrow