Posted on 09/04/2004 3:25:40 PM PDT by outlawcam
I pinch someone in the arm. He screams in pain. Now, let us discuss whether or not pinching someone in the arm causes pain or not. Classic leftist dialectics: it's all relative; it all depends. Whether you're aware or not is irrelevant, but that's what you're trying to do with your challenge. Certain things are not to be disputed, challenged or debated - they're absolutes.
>>It seems the difference is nature.>>
Yes, and behavior. And behavior requires a choice. Hence, the preference of the gay lifestyle.
>>This leaves more questions than answers>>
He already answered your question 1.
Your question 2 was answered in his retort to the homosexual's question on the Doles.
Your question 3 is irrelevant but interesting.
Your question 4 assumes that people living today are better capable of child-rearing than any generation before us, and that homosexuals are just as capable of nurturing children to be productive members of society as non-homosexual marriages. The first assumption is invalid on the basis of pride. The second is false, since adults teach their children far more by example than by word. Homosexuals cannot provide an atmosphere in which a child can learn how to procreate and raise a family in that framework.
Fair request, but that'll be the end of the discussion, right there. It can't be done.
As for Javelina not liking my comparison of Dr. Keyes' superior logic and wisdom to Jesus', you'd have to have read the Gospels to know what I was talking about.
Jesus revealed a wisdom that is from above. That does sound "silly" to anyone who hasn't had such a revelation from God and is basing their existence upon their own logic.
Abstract doesnt work too long in normal conversation. If you try and remain in the dwelling of the living and breathing, and relate your argument to people that are real and moving, your words will not put people to bed early.
Your rhetoric isn't making ANY progress. Keyes didnt use the moral judgement of 'wrong' or even 'right.' He remained in the realm of what the homosexual would understand (note his special attention to this end).
There is no heart of the matter when talking about science of the unknown future. Keyes nailed it again.
You seem to be lost in a loop or irrelevency, with no relation to the issue at hand. Welcome to FR, but rhetorical logic doesnt fly here. Enjoy the self-debate. People love to watch even more than chime in.
Lastly, I repeat... Homosexuals are incapable of doing what heterosexual couples have done for millenia... and homosexuals have neither the resources nor the anatomy to improve on it.
I am not a Keyes hater although I do not support the man. he is a better man than Obama and in this article he shines like a new car.
Well everyone is entitled to make up their own idea of what a marriage is, aren't they? Where do we start and where do we stop?
By revelation we know: God made us male and female for the purposes of partnership and procreation. Sex is accomplishes both in a marriage.
Dr, Keyes quotes the Genesis revelation; "The two become one flesh" and on that basis a marriage can only occur between a man and a woman as they come together for partnership and create offspring [one flesh]. Using sex to promote a partnership outside of marriage is not what God intended. Sex is by God's definition, marital intimacy, not a tool for "strengthening unions".
That understanding, while quite common these days, is outside of the Judeo-Christian revelation [pagan].
Just because it is an absolute doesn't mean there is not a reason. It is the reason I'm trying to express.
There would be no need for him to lie, nor should he. What he should have done is avoided making a phrase that is going to be used as a sound bite and is easily going to be taken out of context.
I'll give ya an example, when Ann Coulter wrote the book treason, and was promoting it, liberal media folks tried to goad her into a soundbite against various politicians, she didn't bite and she managed to make sure everything she said, couldn't be taken out of context. Thats polish.
Exactly. Or better yet -- don't give interviews to Michaelangelo Signorile, noted left-wing activist, in the first place!
The error here is failing to understand that what we call gay is merely a grown-up version of "playing house."
Can you show me where he said that?
He reserves the word "marriage" for the male/female relationship and this is based on the revelation from God found in Genesis..."the two become one flesh". Everything else sexual, [and there are plenty of other forms] he categorizes as "the exchange of mutual pleasure" but not marriage.
If you do not recognize the difference between incident and essence you probably drink lemonade made from artificial flavoring.
Ping!
Everything you ask is answered in the article; why must you torture the reasoning?
ping!
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.