I have a better idea. I'll fill you in later.
Posted on 06/04/2005 9:43:30 AM PDT by CHARLITE
Homosexuals DO have the right to marry members of the opposite sex.
The BS is that homosexuals try and put forth the notion that the law has something to do with love. Love has NEVER been part of the marriage equation under the law.
Homosexuality equates sexual recreation with love. They seek to convert the society rewarded institution of marriage into a mere living aragnegment of recreational sex.
Homosexuality is a learned behavior. All psychology went for the BF Skinner model of human behavior as being learned EXCEPT when it came to this political issue.
How about this analogy: I can use a wrench as a hammer to drive a nail, but no matter what I do it is still a wrench being used contrary to design.
A soulfully smitten fascination with truth and honest living and fear of both, is a more likely scenario. Some describe this phenomenon as the driving force of human nature for life. Then again, some are so scared they try to imitate the reality- no matter what...
Intelligence cannot be measured scientifically. Test until your hearts content, but do not be a biological determinist and fall for the fallacy of believing that you can quantify or assign a single entity to the abstraction of intelligence. Once you do this... then you naturally fall into the second fallacy of ranking.
American Psychologists of the past took these hard "objective" number values and have used them to form ever more complex arguements of worthiness to rank race, class, sex, or to even find those that them deem inferior or even deserve their status.
I believe that intelligence is acquired. Whatever one generation learns it can pass to the next by teaching, writings, traditions, rituals, etc.
Homosexuality could be genetic...if so...it could be cured. Would the homosexuals want that...or are they content with their behavior even though they are not following their biological form and function?
It was accepted by all people or just the elites of the country? I'm not sure of any instance where whole populations were doing this...maybe Sodom and Gomorrah.
We all know what happened to that place.
The Roman Empire is the best example.
A civilization always collapses from the top. Egypt is another prime example.
The final fall of the Chinese Empire is another...
Chinese sodomites? Really?
"by Charles Wickman (Cheney in '08!)""
Hmmmm, perhaps you have Cheney in '08 because he has a lesbian daughter. Could that be too far a stretch? When you have Cheney in 08 knowing he isn't running. Odd.
Eunuchs and non-gelded "butterflys" (rough translation) were an integral part an Emperor's Court, and this accepted sodomy extended to all lower officiary. These types were also well tolerated in common society, prior to the fall of Emperor China.
Of course it will be denied, lol...
They are wearing a mask, much like the actors in ancient Greek drama...
Exactly. They are trying to put us in a Skinner Box, aren't they?
I have many friends and acquaintances who are gay, and I respect them all as people. By and large, the gays I know contribute to society and are not interested in a political agenda--they are not "in your face" queers.
But what you propose, gay "marriage" is impossible.
The fact is that sexual activity is ordained toward childbearing and raising children in a familial environment. That's why the genders were engineered the way they are.
You've attempted to "make points" by pointing out this society's failures and anomalies, and then saying "well, if Bobby and Sue can fornicate/get divorced/prevent conception, then gays can marry..." Wrong. A false premise argument--producing a false conclusion.
It is irrelevant that the Enron management was composed of a bunch of crooks when considering accounting entries at, say, ExxonMobil. Right action, founded on right understanding of moral law, is what IS relevant.
Your relative's situation is difficult for you--and likely even more so for him. But that doesn't mean that his difficulty should militate erasure of the natural law, nor accord him the benefits rightly-ordered societies have conferred on married couples.
Google it. Pollute your own machine.
Iron Jack indeed! sounds like a very macho name
Awwwwww, you're making me blush.
Time to quit hiding behind the lie that homosexuals are just couples whose love dare not speak its name. Homosexuality centers around promiscuity, not commitment, and it is no more about "family" than abortion is.
It's nothing more than another dialectical issue the left is using to fracture our culture.
I'm not sure that I agree; however, I guess it could be argued that the pursuit of homosexual practices is a lifestyle choice.
Some psychiatrists suggest that "aversion therapy" has had some short term success...but the data is not fully in and the rate of recidivisim appears to be substantial.
Others argue that homosexuals could repress their behavior if so inclined...but this would probably lead to either physical or mental illness, or in the acting out in other anti-social directions.
In all things biological, sex is the most powerful driving force known and as far as I am aware, can't be successfully sublimated over the long term.
I have a better idea. I'll fill you in later.
By default, because of "Gay" Pride (???) week, which is this week, June is "Gay" month. That is why Disney World is sponsoring their sodomite extravaganza this week. In my blue-state area, one must avoid going downtown next weekend to keep away from the "Pride" (????) parade and other "gay" hooplah.
A much better, and healthier choice for June would be to make it Serbian-American Heritage Month, because of Vidovdan! The "liberal" elitists of course will never go along with that, but the people can begin celebrating it anyway!
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.