Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: d-back
Fools both.

Right there you show that you aren't interested in discussion.

Read Scalia's dissent; read Kennedy's decision. Your comments show that do not understand the stakes of the game being played. This is not a libertarian decision--it is a pro-homosexual, pro-Leftist agenda decision.

I haven't yet read the dissents. Those dissents wont' change my mind about the morality of homosexuality or the origins of it. And I know very well what the stakes are. This fight needs to be fought with believers, not the courts.

And when they're done inventing a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, they'll move against other "antiquated" rules on sexual matters, like those barring sexual congress with your children.

The Constitution doesn't restrict people, but government. The amendments only enumerate SOME of the rights that citizens have. Look at the 9th and 10th. You tell me what the unenumerated rights are and what they are not. I don't think that you can.

Wake the f!@#$ up.

You know what they say about people who need to curse to make a point, right?

274 posted on 06/28/2003 5:00:54 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excessive legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Deviants. I notice homosexuals being described as deviants here. How so?

Becuase they do not act the way they do- because they are attracted to members of the same sex? That, is, apparently, against nature. Well how can anything be against nature? Nature is by very definition is everything- we do what is in our nature, and if it is in ones nature to love someone of the same sex, then that is what happens.

Equally, homosexuals do not go against evolution. How could they? Evolution is a natural force. If having homosexuals within our population was detrimental to the survival of our species, then they would not exist anymore. Thats how it works. Maybe they are slowly dying out- in which case we need to do nothing to encourage or discourage as it will happen anyway. Homosexuals could promote survival of the species, incidentally, because they do not have natural offspring, and therefore do not increase the numbers of people on this planet, which is straining to cope with so many of us.

Maybe, of course, you could cite the Bible. But if you take the Bible on face value as the direct word of God then you are naive. Check out for all those contradictions. If the Bible was direclty the word of God would it be so confusing? I doubt it. And if it has been written like that deliberately by God, or, more likely, people with their own agenda, there is no way you can trust the Bible as an absolute book of morals. Certainly you can take it as a rough guide, but not as a totalitarian pointer. And, of course, you have to deal with mistranslations within the book which have happened over the past 3000 years or so.

Finally, while gays all want to be accepted for who they are, they all have different methods of goign about this goals, and different ideas. To say one homosexual represents every single one is idiotic to say the least.
275 posted on 06/28/2003 6:10:37 AM PDT by thakil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson