Posted on 12/08/2003 7:12:17 PM PST by Kay Soze
I'm not swayed an inch by the tradition argument. Many traditions have been lost because they were contrary to human rights, fell out of favor, or just didn't fit anymore. Of course my favorite is that if the women doesn't prduce a child we can try another woman. I miss the old days. Besides my wife has some beautiful sisters.
What are you talking about? Marriage continues to be, as it has been for over a thousand years, defined as a union of one man and one woman. There is no fertility testing involved.
In certain instances, justice requires a secular government to eradicate a tradition. For example, the burning of wives upon a man's death was the tradition in India before the British jettisoned it. Beyond those rare instances, government rule should take great care not to disturb the customs of a people. I am surprised you do not believe in this principle. It helps to retain our liberty. Otherwise, governmental authority becomes too powerful when it becomes the sole arbiter of social structures.
Many traditions have been lost because they were contrary to human rights, fell out of favor, or just didn't fit anymore.
Which of these applies to the traditional definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman?
We know homosexuals are mentally ill, or more accurately, maladapted. They have heterosexual bodies that they want to use in non-heterosexal ways.
Whether that maladaptation goes so far as to say they can not enter contracts I can't say. What I can say is if they were healthy they would seek treatment, not tolerance.
As the psychiatrist said to John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind," you can't reason your way through a problem when the problem is in your mind.
Shalom.
Let's distinguish definition and purpose. Right now the definition is very clear, and the governmental purpose is very clear. Your proposed sterility testing muddies the definition. It also has no basis in tradition.
Another case of bad law. If the laws were written correctly, to reflect our founding fathers ideals and the truth that 'homosexuality' is a symptom of an underlying mental trauma then these people would be in therapy instead of in our faces
I subscribe to the rubber band theory of social change. If you pull a rubber band out to it's extreme limit and then let go it lands way back toward it's initial position only stretched out a little bit. I think there are extremists puching the homosexual agenda that you see posted here often. They are on the outside of what most people think is acceptable. However the discussion around there activities will result in some change in the way society looks at homosexuals.
When I was a kid homosexuals weren't supposed to work in the state department or the CIA etc because if our enemies found out they would blackmail them. How could they blackmail them, well they were supposed to stay in the closet and not be know as homosexuals.
Things changed a lot since then. I think all of us are looking at the question what are homosexuals asking for and which of it should be denied. When NAMBLA says sex with kids, that's an easy one. Kids need to be protected from adult manipulation and abuse until they can take care of them selves. But there are those who would deny homosexuals teaching jobs and so on.
To sum it up, some changes will be acceptable in the US and some will not.
The second area is the use of governmental power to deny legal status to some and not to others. As a republitarian I support limited governmental power and when it is used then it must provide the same to all.
You explained but provided no proof. I could explain that I am the rightful King of England but that wouldn't fly very far without my being able to prove it.
This example is meant to counter the argument that marriage is for procreation and therefore homosexuals cannot get married. But infertile heterosexuals can do so.
What about your son? definitely safer with a normal woman than with a SAD male
Why do we paint all people in this category with this brush instead of saying people have individual rights and should be treated as individuals? Why do we paint everyone with the extremist label of the most extreme within their category?
Because the odds are so overwhelmingly in favor of the SAD also being a molester or having a 'friend' who is a molester and the costs are so great that the risk cannot be allowed
No we don't. I know sevarl homosexuals that are very well adapted. In fact I know none who are maladapted. I'll admit it's a small sample. Your first comment about mental illness reveals something weird about your position. Then you seemed to catch yourself.
Be careful on the homosexual sex stuu. You may know, if not from personal experience, that many heterosexuals engage in the same sexual positions and techniques as do homosexuals. There just seems to be one more option for many of us.
They are not married in the eyes of God. (at least not the Christian or Judaic God, or even in the eyes of the Islamic God) They are not married in the eyes of society.
The child is biologically related to only one of them. The other is an unrelated cohabitant.
The child is proof that one of them and an unnamed man who donated the sperm can have a child. "They" did not have a child.
Actually the odds of pedophilia by a homosexual or a heterosexual is quite low. Otherwise, we have a lot of kids not speaking up.
Stone cold serious. Our physiology is heterosexual. Any behavior contrary to that is the result of mental illness. There is no genetic or biological cause for this behavior. It is entirely chosen as a result of trauma. Heal the trauma and the behavior goes away. Therefore anyone exhibiting this behavior is operating under influence of a severe debilitating illness and should not be allowed to enter into contracts. They are just not capable of understanding them.
Now admittedly this particular disease mainly effects only one facet of their behavior but that one facet has been shown time and time again to bleed over into everything else.
To the mentally diseased ('homosexual') person, sex is everything they are.
I advocate a third way: pursue their happiness in relative private.
In most instances in our faces is uncalled for. Gay "marriage" is one of those. But we as individuals should be tolerant, certainly absolutely so about responsible private homosexual behavior.
Based on these stances, I think I can remain sort of neutral on what you say about therapy. I believe it to be irrelevant to the issues on these threads.
Your definition of mental illness is rare and I'm sure you can find someone to agree with you or perhaps some fringe author. People that can function in society, have a grasp of reality, and engage in everyday social intercourse are not mentally ill. They may also be democrats, but it's propaganda to apply the term mental illness to them.
I think my sister is crazy to marry who she married, but I really don't think she's mentally ill.
You are part of the clique here who can say anything about homosexuals and get away with it. As long as you have the protection of the owner.
In the interests of discussion, can you name one that:
During the slave years, the southernors kept the slaves from becoming powerful enough to fight for their own rights in part by destroying their families.
Once the blacks could form good family institutions they rose quickly to the point where they could demand their civil rights.
The dimocrats didn't like that, so they created "The Great Society" to destroy black families again. Now look where the blacks are (except conservative ones).
Shalom.
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.