Posted on 05/17/2004 4:20:41 PM PDT by Gelato
The radicals have implemented their agenda without holding public office. Those who control the culture (media, schools, arts, religion) control the society.
He's mouthed some platitudes about homosexual marriage because he knows he's in the majority locally and nationally on the issue. But his overriding ambition seems to be the presidency.
He's "pro-life but..." He was very weak on the issue in his gubernatorial campaign. I have no use for anyone who won't stand up in defense of life.
Just think of the difference between NH and MA. In NH we have in the law a definition of marriage as that between a man amd a woman. The great and general court just passed law to not recognize homosexual marriage originating elsewhere. Concord is only about 85 miles from Boston. How can NH be so different?
That would make a great bumper sticker.
No offense intended, but I'm with LJ on that one.
A bump for Chief Justice Moore and for Ambassador Keyes, I admire them both.
Polycarp IV, thanks for the ping. Deacon, please read this post!
I saw him a few years ago. He was electrifying and brilliant, and spoke the truth. I hope he becomes more prominant. People need to hear what he has to say. Has he written a book?
I think he has, but his forte is public speaking. He's the best.
Very prejudiced of you. If you were here, I would show you many. Consider the number of hetero-affairs. Does this not dimish marriage just the same? There was a point when inter-racial marriage was considered taboo as well.
I'm not here to defend gays as I could careless one way or the other. I'm here to defend the Constitution, and what you are claiming is that "you don't like the thought of it". You are not claiming that its consitutional, as I see no arguments of your referring or linking to the Constitution.
Did you find any of that in Alan's speech?
You may find the following links helpful in formulating a coherent philosophical system:
Yes, exactly. Its called conscientious disobedience and is a legitimate response to unlawful acts of the government. It can threaten us with fines and imprisonment but it cannot compel us to consent to an act that offends the Law Of God. I keep thinking of Martin Luther's famous response at the Diet Of Worms, asserting he could not violate his conscience and do something he knew was wrong. The problem with our politicians are they submit like poodles to the illegal edicts of tyrannical judges. An early generation knew better. There is a clear difference between right and wrong and it doesn't change with the times. That is the difference my friends, between conservatives and liberals and religious and secular people. We all know what Massachusetts needs to do but its establishment is for lack of a better word, filled with moral cowards.
You said:
"I know a lot of people who will be voting Democratic that would instead vote Republican if "those closed minded Republicans would stop being so racist, prejudice, righteous, and religiously hypocritical, and start applying logic rather than emotion to their arguments." At least that seems to be thier opinion of the Right. Funny how we accuse the Left of exactly the same thing."
I think you're hanging out with the wrong crowd. You're hanging out with people use depend on emotion instead of reason and intelligence. And not just any emotion, but ill-informed bitterness, envy and anger.
I heartily suggest you take up some form of manual trade, learn how to spell, listen more and talk/write less. You only shame yourself with your senseless babble.
Attack the character, ridicule the group, show contempt for the sentences... HEY! How about challenging the argument! You don't know who I hang out with. For all you know, I just might be hanging out with you.
That heterosexuals are not always faithful is not argued, although they do tend to be more monogamous in marriage than outside of it. What marriage provides is stability and clear identification of who is responsible for children. Children are the primary reason for marriage, whether or not they are present in a given marriage.
Now you want a constitutional reason for the government to regulate marriage? Try this one...
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
What is unconstitutional is judges usurping the legislative branch's legitimate powers by making law rather than acting on it.
No. Not directly. But unless Alan is gay, or knows more than many of my gay friends, it's a quick statement to say that "It is the indulgence in sexual relations for the sake of that sensual, and sexual, and emotional fulfillment that the parties involved can derive from the relationship, and that's all there is to it." Sex has more advantages than just pleasure and procreation. Like hydrogen atoms that become more stable in the form of H2, we humans pair up in intimate ways for social stability. Sex is one method for achieving that. It's a complicated thing and I find myself scraping the barrel on this. Again, I like the straight culture ten times more than I do the gay culture, but the Constitution is not a popularity contest. I digress. And I think Alan, who is not gay, is trying to speak for the gay culture.
Next, he claims that sex's true underlying purpose is to procreate, and that only a man and a woman can do so. Well, I'm not stupid enough to deny that. But he then continues to claim that marriage is all about procreation because marriage is historically between a man and a woman. I'm not buying into that, and it's no argument. That's like claiming that eating ice cream causes rapes because we all know that more people eat ice create in the summer time, when rapes occur more frequently. Yes, I will agree that that was the most important point of marriage, and why it was invented. But saying that does not prove that it is the only point, nor does it prove that gay marriage prevents straight marriage from procreating. Marriage is supposed to be a covenant between two people, relatives, friends, and God. Even if you claim that the two people must be of opposite sex, that doesn't show how someone outside of that covenant (a gay couple married in Sweden) breaks your covenant. But perhaps a lot of married couples today don't value a covenant and are looking for any excuse to divorce. If so, then say it! Stop the pretence.
He says, "a child's life is not an accident". I'd argue that if we could prevent ourselves from having children merely by not "wanting" to conceive them now, the human population today would probably number in the low millions. Consider why the act of sex is pleasurable. It's nature's (or God's) way of forcing us to have more children than we would rationally choose otherwise.
"It is not about the future! It is not about the society! It is not about that which at any given moment can transcend the pleasure of the individuals! It's not about that." Sounds like the chant of most Marxists.
"marriage is about family; it's about having kids" -- So what happens when two gay people do adopt children, or come to America with them? Do we still deny them marriage? "there are still laws on the books against things like incest". What happens if first cousins procreate, but the mother has a hysterectomy? Do we still deny them marriage (according to his argument) or is there more to it than that? Obviously incest taboos prevent immunity diseases. That's an argument! But what if the damage is already done? Now just because I can find gray zones does not prove my point, but it does cast doubt on his arguments
"You think everybody's going to have a DNA test before they hop into the sack? You've got another think coming." At least we can have DNA tests after the child is born to prove who is the father. It's now a lot more difficult to cheat, have kids, and get away with it. Our marriage culture and mores did not evolve with that technology.
"which will be the better basis for marriage--that hedonistic self-gratification approach to human sexuality, or the approach that sees procreation as its heart?" Here's the same type of argument? Which will be the better basis for an economic system-the hedonistic self-gratifications approach of Adam Smith, or Marx's approach that sees equality as its heart? Does that make it a correct argument?
"[Marriage] gets involved in order to avoid the feuds and disputes and conflicts that lead to violence and war when they are left to fester in a society... [Therefore] marriage is essentially about the children." Man, am I the only one here that sees the flaw in line of reasoning? If marriage is so great for resolving conflict, why is he trying to adamant to deny gay people the right to marry?
I don't trust the these types of speeches. Speakers know that if they show obvious signs of intolerance, racism, and prejudice, people stop listening. So today's talkers have honed the skills of disguising this. For example, all the NPR hosts deliberately have these soft, feminine, non-confrontational, politically correct tones and voices in hopes to convey objectivity, impartiality, and "just the facts ma'am". The tone is a facade. They are heavily biased toward liberalism. I suspect Alan is playing the same game, for I hear statements, but no supporting facts or empirical data.
I'm not excluding them -- the law is. I'm only claiming that it's not unconstitutional to do so. Just because I claim that something is constitutional, doesn't mean I condone it. The Constitution exists to prevent bastards like me (and others you don't like) from getting too much power. I don't disapprove of bisexuals. I do disapprove of George Bush (who I'm voting for in 2004) to whimsically propose an amendment to our Constitution simply because a lot of people "feel" that gay marriage is an abomination. He's only doing that to pander to the crowd. Thank God we have Congress and the Supreme Court to keep presidents in check. Else, Clinton would have Universal Health Care today.
Marriage is defined by common law, dictionaries, and human understanding as the union between one man and one woman. That is marriage.
Common law and human understanding used to define citizenship as land owners. Things change.
Without marriage, society loses its founding unit, the family. Society cannot survive without it. The family predates and created society.
I agree with you. So do gay couples who want to get married. (1) Is preventing them from getting married really destroy "our" marriages -- something that is supposed to be between a small set of localized people and God? (2) Is is constitutional to say otherwise? I'd bet my marriage is stronger than all of yours put together. Mine is not threatened by gay marriage! It is threatened by the wrath of God if I do not honor my vows. The married couple across the street is no excuse for me to do otherwise.
Once you say, as they did, that marriage is a thing that must be contorted to fit the gay lifestyle simply because they want its privileges, you must contort it to fit all lifestyles that want its privileges.
Wrong. Pro-lifers (like myself) tried that extrapolatio ad absurdum tactic. "If you allow mothers to abort a child at 3 months, then they will want 4 months, then 5, then 2-year olds, until these mothers kill all the children in the world." Guess what? Roe vs. Wade! Slipped right under the radar. Why? Because the arguments were FLAWED!!!!!
If you guys really want to prevent gays from getting married, you better trash your current lines of reasoning, go back to the drawing board, and start from scratch. Because at the rate you are going, there will be a constitutional amendment one day that does the exact opposite of what G.W. is proposing!
The 9th Amendment prohibits the Constitution from being used to deny or disparage any right of the people. Since you say marriage is an equal right like owning property or voting, how do you justify the violation of the 9th Amendment by exclusionary marriage laws?
Do you agree with anti-incest and anti-polygamy laws? Why or why not?
Further, if a bisexual wants to marry both a man and a woman, why do you think he should be prevented? If homosexuality must be granted the "benefits" and "privileges" of marriage, why not bisexuality?
If the laws were changed to allow incestuous, polygamist, and bisexual marriages, would you fight this change?
You just said the people you hang out with think thus and such, and I said those people aren't using their intelligence and reason.
You obviously aren't hanging out with me, because the people I hang out with would rather be dead than liberal or vote Democrat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.