Posted on 10/19/2004 5:17:28 PM PDT by TaxRelief
Good article with an interesting perspective. Some pretty good discussion so far.
I am not lying. And I take you have never heard the phase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Strawman alert.
Oh I understand what you are saying, but I am more for prioritizing in list form, major problems to minor problems. I find this is the easiest to start to solve problems as a whole.
for later perusal
1. To stop the activist judicial promotion of a deviant, unnatural, sexual practice, that threatens the stability and survival of the human race.
2. To promote and protect the institute which supports the fact that the union of a man and a woman is necessary for the continued survival of all life.
The proof I offer is the fact that you and I exist. If either of our parents had been born true homosexuals and it was the norm then you and I would not exist.
Therefore if you reply to this I will have to assume that you exist and consider your reply as further proof of my statement.
I take it you have not actually read through the rest of this thread.
" 'Androgen insensitivity syndrome' a person is born with XY chromosomes and testes, but has outward female genitial, though having not internal female reproductive organs. The person's cells are immune to testosterone, during puberty this cause a overproduction of testosterone which the body naturally converts to estrogen. Physically the person develops like an average girl in body measurements and usually has the mental view of being a girl."
I have to post a comment to Paul after THAT post,( and his not answering the simple question that was put to him on what "rights" are homosexuals being denied , and then posting THAT arguement):
Dear Paul C Jesup,
In response to your "post", I strongly encourage YOU to engage in an autonomous act of extreme physical intimacy that some might consider physiologically impossible.
...still would like to hear you answer that simple question posed to you. You sound like Terry McC, unable to answer Sean Hannity's question to him to name ONE piece of legislation that F'n sponsored in his 19 years in the senate.
It's exactly like your answer........(crickets "singing"...)
First, I answered KingNo155 question. He just didn't like the way I answered him.
Second, 'androgen insensitivity syndrome' is an actual PHYSICAL condition and not a physiological condition.
Third, I have recieved multiple replies to single posts in an attempt to wear me out. It is not going to work.
Fourth, I have pointed out various problems and holes that are currently in the arguement for the marriage amendment debate. These issues need to be addressed or they will come back to bite you in the but when the courts, which you loath, are left to interrupt them, which leaves you back to square one.
Fifth, whether you like it not, there are greater threats to our liberty than from the homosexual movement. For example, various government agencies like the IRS and EPA
Sixth, some people here are under the false impression that the marriage amendment will somehow fix the 'judicial tyranny' in this country. It won't. If you want to fix 'judicial tyranny' than support a Constitution Amendment to deal with that.
Why can't you have this level of passion towards getting rid of coruption in government, like getting rid of the IRS or other parts government that are directly invasive and are a danger to us and our freedoms instead of focusing on lesser matters like homosexuality.
Using your logic, if everyone pooled their resources and put forth an effort to eliminate the IRS, it would bear fruitage. Well, you are wrong.
Do you know why? Because standing in the way of any populist movement to kill the IRS would be an untold number of activist judges who have spent their entire careers deciding that the will of the people doesn't mean jack if it doesn't pass muster with the black-robed people in the high chairs.
Nobody likes to mess with the Constitution. That's why it's only been amended 27 times in the 228 year history of this republic. But when something as personal to the individuals who make this nation as the legal definition of the family unit is subject to change by judicial fiat, all measures must be considered.
You seem to be of the opinion that the power of the people that would be required to save the nuclear family from activist judges would sap future efforts closer to your heart. I disagree -- I think if marriage is "saved," people will like the way they feel after flexing their muscles, and move on to another target.
Besides, I would venture to guess that most of -- if not all -- of the people pissing and moaning about a proposed marriage definition amendment aren't aware that last Amendment was ratified in 1992 -- during the Clinton Administration! Are we to believe that a Congressional salary Amendment passed in the 18th Century and not enshrined until the end of the 20th was disruptive of the rest of the legislative and judicial processes?
Thank you for stating the obvious with such simplicity and flair.
Homosexuality does not contribute to the precreation of man. Birth rates are dropping radically in Western civilization due to divorce, sterilization, contraception, and homosexuality.
Gays cannot beget children. Period. They must "recruit" young people to keep the "lifestyle" alive.
Of course we cannot speak of homosexuality without moral and spiritual ramifications being raised. It is clearly against the Law of God. Period. End of story. God does not permit it, as it is a perversion of the natural order which He created. It is not part of His plan for us, and there fore it is sin.
Think of that - in the ultimate spiritual sense - as being a definition of sin: to stray from God's plan for us.
Homosexual activity is from the Devil - as is all sin - as it is INVERSION of God's plan.....God's creation.
I do not speak of love - chaste love between two person's of the same sex......who are old friends, or even between siblings of the same sex, this a good thing. But once sex enters into the picture, all is twisted, warped, and inverted and preverted. Nothing good can come from a soiled relationship. It is not of God.
To understand this completely requires the eyes of faith. Not merely the fear of flaunting accepted social convention. By the same token, hetrosexuality is merely fulfilling socially acceptable conventions.
When homosexualtiy is viewed as the flaunting of accepted social convention, then it is easy in these times to flaunt such convention, and to to engage in what is naughty.
But we do not speak here of mere social convention nor of what is acceptable & proper behaviour. We are speaking of the very Law of the Eternal God who created us. this is not an issue of social ettiquete. He created us for his greater glory - to love others in accordance with His laws. And in doing so, to show our love for Him, who is the author of all love.
Not to be an animal and copulate with everything which moves! That is selfishness, and takes us away from God.
God IS love......Christ's name IS mercy. Who would want to be seperated from Him?
Today, every adult has exactly the same marriage rights. If the federal marriage amendment passes, every adult will still have exactly the same marriage rights.
Well Paul, you sure skimmed over MY post.
"First, I answered KingNo155 question. He just didn't like the way I answered him."
Well I didn't like the way you answered him (AND others)either.
"Second, 'androgen insensitivity syndrome' is an actual PHYSICAL condition and not a physiological condition.
I NEVER said 'androgen insensitivity syndrome' was a "physiological" condition. My reply to YOU, was my "review" of ALL of your posts up until my post to you. Since you "skimmed" it last time, here it is AGAIN:
"I strongly urge YOU to engage in an autonomous act of extreme physical intimacy, that some might consider physiologically impossible."
TRANSLATION:In other words, what Dick Cheney said to Patrick Leahy. If Cheney had used my LONGER version, it would have went right over HIS head , just like it did yours.
"Third, I have recieved multiple replies to single posts in an attempt to wear me out. It is not going to work."
Well, since MY reply and "request" to you will NOT wear you out, you should have a VERY interesting remainder to your evening.
....and have a NICE day.....
The Federal Marriage Amendment does not relate to homosexuality. By defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, the amendment would prevent any man, regardless of his sexual orientation, from marrying another man, regardless of his sexual orientation. It would also prevent any woman, regardless of her sexual orientation, from marrying another woman, regardless of her sexual orientation.
In 5th grade I fear the liberal elites will have them "study" the Koran and pray facing Mecca 5 times a day on a prayer rug. Gee, I wonder if the ACLU would object to that.....
If you have any ability to help them get out, whether financially, or simply through helping their parents understand how bad the public schools have become, and how tragic it is to allow the childhood of those you love to be squandered in that environment, that would be a worthy mission!
bump
Its called the potential to reproduce, as far as I know John and Tom do not have the same potential.
You can take up this battle with the dictionary.
norm ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nôrm) n.1. A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical: the current middle-class norm of two children per family.
There's a reason why the study of logic was an essential component of a classical education.
Recommended reading.
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.