Posted on 05/21/2004 8:07:05 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
The question I posed was important to me. I was born with an intersexed condition and as a result, cannot have children at all. No surgeries or prayers can fix that. We deal with what life hands us. I was literally handed a mixed bag but that should be no reason to exclude me from marrying a nice girl sometime in the future.
My concern is that there will be some narrow definition handed down or perhaps something so vague that we will fight in the courts about it for years to come. All because legilators don't care to reseach issues completely before bowing to the masses and attempting that re-election.
Just because someone doesn't completely agree with you does not mean they fall within a certain part of society. I expect an attempt at character assassination from a liberal, not from someone on this board.
Resrouces for medical intersex conditions: Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and Intersex Society of North America.
I asked a question to someone who posted a comment on the article, not on the article itself. Rogueleader answered. Perhaps you should read everything through before shooting off a reply.
I've had a vasectomy; I don't even entertain worries that I will be prohibited from marrying due to my chosen method of contraception.
Your effort to divert the discussion into rare and obscure conceptualizations shows an agenda to divert attention from the realities at hand, namely that the degenerates are seeking to destroy the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman, as a means to empower their degeneracy. Keep helping them and you will be seen for what you defend.
So, let's see, I torched your absurd main point like the Hindenburg, and made the additional point that this issue comes down to whether the Constitution means "Judges own you, so suck it up" or not, and your only counter is to whine about procedure.
I recommend you quit whining and hit the silk before that fire gets to the main fuel tanks.
I think there's a disconnect here.
1) I responded to Rogueleader's statement that marriage was for every child to have a mother and a father.
2) I responded asking about those who cannot have children and how they fit within RL's definition of marriage.
3) RL stated that they could serve as a role model for others and would be allowed to be married.
Intent of the first post was asking for RL opinion based on a different set of facts (infertile couples). My other post stated why this was important to me. IE, if procreation became a requirement for marriage it would leave many other straight people out in the cold.
Why would I be concerned? It would leave myself or future wife out in the cold as marriage does afford some rights and privileges.
If legislation is going to be pushed, then multiple factors have to be considered before passing anything. To do any less will create a legal monster that will take years to sort out. During that time who knows what can happen and may slip under the wire?
I am truly sorry that someone who advocates a smart and resonable approach to this is dismissed and labeled.
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.