Posted on 12/08/2003 7:12:17 PM PST by Kay Soze
Oh, okay, I'll clean your clock again. I was hoping you would be so kind as to point out the propaganda from the following:
Good point (and I hate to admit it, but I hadn't thought of that one), except that if both woman are relatively poor, I am not sure what the benefits would be really financially (other than social security survivor benefits, but you said woman with children), and if one woman is much richer than the other, than the rich woman is bearing the finanacial risk.
So then, should heterosexual couples who are physically unable to produce children naturally not be allowed to marry?
The law would make perfect sense because no man would be allowed to marry any woman with whom he could not produce children with...applying to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
And there are a lot of reasons for marriage other than procreation.
There could be any number of reasons why people may get together and formalize their arrangements, but procreation is certainly the main reason that the state regulates marriage.
One man and one woman marrying and producing children and forming a family unit is the pattern that the state has a compelling interest in preserving. The state does it by supporting the traditional institution of marriage. I ask again: what is the compelling reason to change this state of affairs?
Since more blacks commit murder per capita than other races, does this mean the black guy down the street from me is dangerous.
You post a lot of stuff about pedophilia, but I've never seen you post that the cops and social workers don't know the real rates because so much is believed to be within families and goes unreported.
Even excepting your non-scientific crap about pedophilia, would my daughter be safer with a homosexual or heterosexual male teacher. In short, your crap has no pratical application except to hold this site up as extremist and to be ridiculed by thinking people.
As long as the owner allows your type of posting, have fun. But let's not pretend anything you're doing resembles american or conservative values.
However, your argument is not at all convincing that therefore, to be fair or some such thing, the state must rigorously step in and outlaw marriage between heterosexual couples who cannot or do not want to produce children.
These silly arguments have been answered again and again on these threads.
Justice, as defined by the Justinians is "Constans et perpetua voluntas, jus suum cuique tribuendi."
"The constant and perpetual will to secure to every one HIS OWN right."
The law exists as a servant to Justice.
Individual rights, all genderless in the eye of the Law.
Read this when you get a chance.
Getting late, I'll follow up when I can. Adios.
Even excepting your non-scientific crap about pedophilia
Oops. There you go again, making statements without any supporting evidence. Well, here's your chance to find what your'e looking for: Homosexuals, being around 2% (including bisexuals) of the population, account for a third of child molestations. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
I have more if you're interested.
Perhaps you should start your own project for other groups that demand rights based on behavior... behavior that results in such severe health hazards as stated above.
Let me get this straight.
You are in a Conservative forum arguing that the State is acting in the best interest of our children, and that's why homosexuals who are unable to bear children are not allowed to marry?
Would you be making reference to the same State that legalizes killing a million fetuses a year?
Do you deny the health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle?
Why do you use the word "limiting"? I agree there are many reasons why a man and a woman decide to get married. But the procreation that results from sexual union is the fundamental social fact that motivated the institution of marriage to be created, and is still vitally important to it. Is it not?
By the way, you do know that Israel lets out of the closet gays into its military didn't you?
What's the connection?
You don't know the difference between recognizing rights and "encouraging" something. Weak!
You know the percentage of the population that is homosexual and you know the % of pedophilia committted by homosexuals. Since most people including the police and social workers don't know these stats, you could make a lot of money selling your information.
Oh, I forgot, you don't have any of your own info, just unscientific postings and propaganda.
You answer to my challenges has been weak and spotty. Sleep on it and ask around. Then maybe you'll have an epiphany.
Good luck. C-YA
If the state indeed has an interest in promoting family life, then it should support the extension of marriage to homosexuals in order to stabilize and legalize their relationships. And as I pointed out to you, many homosexuals do have children.(as do many unmarried heterosexuals.)
In my experience discussing this issue, anyone who rabidly opposes gay marriage virtually always does so for two reasons 1) unthinking prejudice (I hate homos ) and 2) traditional religious teaching( God hates homos)
Any purported public policy rationales are just a pretext for (1) or (2) or most often (1) and (2)
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.