Posted on 05/17/2004 4:20:41 PM PDT by Gelato
I would guess it is.
Thank you.
But I would argue that The road to the gulag, The extermination camp, The guillotine, The abortuary, All begin in the same place -- all began with one group of people in power denying their country's rights to another group of people.
Your reasoning here is twisted. The people in power walked away from what God said was right and wrong. They despised Him, and then they proceeded to despise what Jefferson call the 'unalienable rights' of human beings...even though these rights are 'self-evident' to all.
Perhaps we are "despising the Creator" by shutting out gay people, using the same Christian poetic rhetoric that shut out women from voting and blacks from owning property.
Nobody is 'shutting them out'. They have all the same rights as anyone else. And unlike some times in the past, no one is stoning them to death.
Women can't change the fact that they are women, and to be a woman is not to disobey God.
No man or woman has any say over the pigment of their skin.
But homosexuality is an ACT...not a state of being.
And God says that it is the act of a person who has seared their conscience severely.
One of the problems folks like yourself have is that you don't have a decent working understanding of what liberty is; not in the way the founders of our free republic understood freedom.
They would never in a million years have agreed that liberty means the freedom to do wrong. They had a name for that: License.
And they passed laws by the bucketfuls against licenciousness.
They defined liberty as the freedom to do good...the unfettered freedom to obey God and to serve others without being trampled on by tyrants.
If I were black or a woman I would be personally offended at your equating that fact with the homosexual act and lifestyle.
I feel the same way. I just like him and love to listen to him.
I just see a bunch of concrete arguments about specifics. In this example above, what if the father was dead? Would this change Keyes' argument? Would it then be OK for the two lesbians to argue? What pray tell little jeremiah do you want from me? To argue all the points? I made my statement. I believe in the Constitution of the United States, like I believe in God. I just reserve the right to understand both by making my own individual personal assessment, rather than always following the collective norm. We have laws that prevent someone like me from asserting too much power over the system. Thank God the same rules apply to you.
As I understand it, our Constitution is a set of laws that is supposedly not allowed to play favorites.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
and
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
and
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
I may not like it, and you may not like it, but is that a good argument? The Christian Right is getting smaller and smaller. Do you want to be subjugated by arguments coming from other soon-to-be larger demographics in America who just might not like you?
If we pass an amendment that plays religious favorites, we are setting a precedent for future "not us" groups to do the same.
If marriage is an equal right, like owning property or voting, then it should be extended to all people, correct? There can be no discrimination, right?
There were reports months back of a man who married his grown daughter. It was consentual for both. They were subsequently arrested and charged under laws against incest. Are their rights being violated?
Secondly, infamous polygamist Tom Greene is currently serving in prision under anti-polygamy laws. Are his rights being violated?
The liberals say the exact same thing about Hillary Clinton. Has logical argument and facts become passe these days?
I think the suppoters of homosexual marriage are missing the point: if government sanctions abnormal behavior by one group, what right does it have sanctioning the behavior by another?
prision = prison
Whats to explain?
You made a comment:
---- "His main goal, which I strongly share, is always to focus people's attention on THE foundational principles of our republic:
the fact that our rights to life, liberty and private property come from the Creator, not man, and therefore can never rightfully be taken from us by mere men."
23 -EV-
______________________________________
Keyes message would be much more effective if he admitted that regardless of where our rights to life, liberty and private property come from, no group of men who advocate 'legislating morality', can ever rightfully take them from us.
Keyes comes very close to calling for majority rule in his speeches. - He should say it isn't so, -- but he never does.
64 -tpaine-
--- I replied, commenting on your view of Keyes.
I find it sad that you can't comprehend, but what more can I say?
You have a problem with legislating morality?
Perhaps we should legislate immorality?
The 'majority rule' thing is incomprehensible.
Alan is a republican, in the truest sense of the word.
Whole industries, both in the entertainment media and in the production of all kinds of contraceptive devices and pills and this and that--all based upon, what? All based upon the pursuit of this form of sexual fulfillment, to free oneself from the shadow of procreation, so that it will no longer haunt the relationship, no longer burden the relationship, no longer be there as something which calls one away from the vocation of self-gratification toward a vocation that requires responsibility and self-sacrifice.
Anyone noticing a theme emerging here?
(The Church has ALWAYS been right on contraception. Here is just another reason why.)
Hahahahaha....
The definition and meaning of marriage being one man and one woman (leaving aside forays into polygamy for now) completely transcends "Christian right" and if you have read comments I've made on FR you wouldn't be so quick to pigeonhole me.
Since this thread is connected to Dr. Keyes' speech and his arguments against same sex "marriage", why not try to refute his arguments, if you disagree with him?
And BTW, none of his arguments were based on sectarian religious concerns.
The three quotes from the Constitution have zero - zilch - nada - to do with changing the definition of marriage to mean two men or two women playing with each others' genitals.
You said:
"Perhaps we are "despising the Creator" by shutting out gay people, using the same Christian poetic rhetoric that shut out women from voting and blacks from owning property"
Perhaps not.
Why use the word "poetic"?
Shutting "gay" people out from what? They can get married, it just has to be to a person of the opposite sex, just as I must.
Trying to equate people practicing same sex sodomy to black people is sick, tiresome, and horribly insulting to black people everywhere. It's based on the lie that homosexuals are "born that way" just as someone is born a certain race. Homosexuality is fluid and people often decide they "are homosexual" after a lifetime of marriage, and often quit being "homosexual". No one in the history of the universe has become black after being white, or become white after being black.
Well, there is Michael Jackson...
;-)
No. His rights are not being violated. There is no hypocrisy. Making laws about the number of people that can practice a law (as in polygamy, as well as the maximum number of people that are allowed in restaurant simultaneously) is not a violation an individual's rights. This falls in the "21 to drink", "16 to drive", "18 to vote", "2 to marry" category. Quantity constraints, as well as age constraints, do not violate individual rights. They are equal among all citizens over a lifetime. As for the relations between people, incest taboos are a statement about the whole -- not the part, and again apply to everyone equally. Neither of your arguments are in the form "If you (an individual) have an immutable attribute X (such as color of skin, religion, sex, creed), then you are not allowed to do something". Therefore, they are not a violation of your rights. Age is not an immutable attribute and does not segregate citizens over their entire lifespan. It is an attribute that we all posses equally over our lives.
Gay people pay taxes. If the goal of the USA is to promote children (which is not discriminatory), then the USA should make laws that give tax credits to people that have children. And they do, which is OK, and does not violate our constitution! But they also give tax credits to people who are heterosexually married, and deny those privileges to gay people, which I believe is unconstitutional. So stop applying arguments that promote children to marriage. If you want to promote children, then subsidize them. People will start having them, as our welfare system so obviously proves.
You're going to have to do better than just claiming it's a lie. What about people who are born with two X and one Y chromosome? Google search it. I place the burden of proof on you!
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.