Posted on 05/20/2004 12:56:33 PM PDT by NYer
=== but I don't argue with a person's individual right to avoid pregnancy by whatever means.
Fair warning: This will be your next step to consistency, if I have anything to do with it. =)
All the best, Marvin. Always good to see you.
=== But Bush wants to take the issue away from the courts. That's the key element.
Link this up with all the emphasis on keeping Bush for purposes of court appointments so I can follow you.
"Ghost of FReepers Past" ... interesting.
"The problem is having this forced on us when the people do not want it." In Mass-a-two-sh!ts the subpreme court removed the people's right to decide and dictated to the state that a new societal definition would be instituted without the sovereign right of the voters to be exercised. It's just typical of liberal pigs ... and the democrats don't even try to obfuscate their agenda any longer, stating openly that their liberal candidate if elected will appoint to the subpreme court of the U.S. liberals who will dictate from the bench.
"Thus self-destructs the idea of meaningful competition. How can a woman compete with someone who grew to full stature under the influence of male hormones (bone and muscle structure, etc) even if he has been taking female hormones for the past two years?!? "
Not a really good question. If the woman can't compete, she will lose. End of story.
Which, once again, places him in total defiance with the teachings of "his" faith. John Kerry - CINO!
"Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy."
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
You must be very young. I can remember when the VAST MAJORITY of Americans viewed abortion with horror and disgust.
Wallowing in sordidness is what America does these days. In 5 years your best friends will swear they always thought gay mariage was a swell idea.
I don't like any of it. I also agree that we should ban civil unions. They ARE marriage by a different name. But at the federal level, I think the Musgrave amendment is fine. I would go with a stronger amendment if I could, but it will do. At the state level, it is not adequate at all.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Look, Cal Thomas and I Are On The Same Wavelength (no pun intended) - Tsunami of Sewage Alert.
I haven't even read this article yet, want to do my duty first.
Someone alerted me to this part:
"The International Olympic Committee last Monday cleared transsexuals to compete in the Olympics for the first time providing their new gender has been legally recognized and they have gone through a minimum two-year period of postoperative hormone therapy."
Un-***-believable or what?
Obviously they are not going to stop until same sex sodomy is mandatory, and I'm only being half sarcastic.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this (getting busier by the day) pinglist.
Sounds to me like you flunked Anatomy in school. It's remedial designer ed for you!
There are many solutions but there is one which I believe will go a long way and that is:
TERM LIMITS on all elected and appointed offices.
Judges have been given a free ride for far too long. They seem to be unaccountable.
Nope, not nearly. About a third of Americans are opposed based on firmly held religious convictions, another third are for them, just to piss off the first third, and the final third are uncomfortable with sanctioning gay relationships right now. There is a brief window of opportunity that is rapidly closing on getting them to the side of the opposition. Right now, the gays are winning the media battle for the mushy middle, it probably won't even be a raging issue by November.
If it keeps conservatives solidly in line behind the President, great. But it will be other things that determine the outcome of the election. Kerry has been quite careful to avoid sounding off too much on this issue, the only real hurdle is how he will handle gay rights activists at his convention this summer. If he can find something to mollify them so they won't make too much trouble for him, he makes it through the minefield on this issue.
Yes. We haven't hit bottom yet, and we won't until we recover the idea of natural law. I don't see that happening in the decades ahead.
=== No, there is no unitive nature, either. There are no complementary parts to unite. What do lesbians try to unite, anyway?
Of course there is. I don't for a moment believe the penis was ordered to the anus or that lesbian sex in any way approaches the Unitive that is penetration of a woman by a man.
But neither do I deny that, however disordered the sexual attraction may be, there sometimes exists precisely the same sort of tenderness, affection, love and desire between two people of the same sex causing them to wish to give themselves to each other and consume each other ... same, only vastly different, as heteros.
I know plenty of who've "married" privately though none of the really longterm couples I know ever felt the need to do so. (much like live-in heteros, these days, who don't mind riding the civil union bandwagon)
In fact, I was kinda taken aback listening to a young queen in our cast a couple weeks ago detailing the hots he had for a cute waiter. "I didn't see a ring or anything so I don't thing he was 'married' or anything." He used that obnoxious crimping of the forefingers into quotation marks as he said "married."
Sorta summed it up for me ... particularly where the Gay Pride, under-35 or so, contingent's concerned.
Face it ... most of them are the products of broken homes or open marriages anyway. Again, we can thank the heteros for demolishing the union such that homosexuals were in a position to claim equivalency in the first place.
Yep.
=== Sounds to me like you flunked Anatomy in school
By "unitive," I'm not speaking to the physicality of the relationship whereby two not only join but have the potential to become greater than the sum of their parts.
That comes under Procreative.
I had some attorney accidently forward porn to me through the office mails recently. It was a clip from the Ukraine sex olympics where some woman hung on some guy -- "no hands!" -- as part of the competition.
Technically they were joined at the hip. I don't think there was a shred of "unitive" of which I speak where their conjoining was concerned.
Now that I've read his article, I am not happy. I agree with his general premise (although the seismic event(s) started long before his estimate) but not with his pessimism. I think conservatives not only have a chance to turn this evil around, but an imperative duty.
Hiding in enclaves and being moral ourselves (supposedly) while letting the rest of the country/world go to hell in a handbasket is not only stupid but wrong.
I say fight hard, fight harder, and then fight harder than that.
And the best defense is a good offense.
Um . . . that isn't exactly the case. The people who are pursuing this (from out perspective) moral anarchy are doing so out of a warped morality of their own, usually described as being an abhorrence of "discrimination" (though why "discrimination" should be any more wrong than homosexuality to a moral anarchist is beyond me). In fact, these people are using law, not chaos, to enforce their own morality on the rest of us (something they can do and we can't, apparently because we invoke a higher authority and they invoke only themselves; wonder if that would work for our side?).
For people whose worldview is allegedly (according to themselves) based on the theory that nothing has any meaning whatsoever, they not only don't act on this alleged belief but have a fear of "chaos" (ie, disobedience to their own moral view) that likewise belies their attribution of the existence of all things to randomness. (Besides, wouldn't "randomness" be better glorified by a more random society, rather than the tightly regulated anti-morality moral straitjacket they are bent on imposing?)
I read recently that it is to Nietzsche that we owe the idea that in a meaningless universe we owe supreme allegiance to "values." He may have played a role in modernity's enunciation of this doctrine, but I don't believe he invented it.
Do you believe all married couples, regardless of their financial and/or emotional situations, should be having and continuously having children until they are no longer physiologically able?
In Dale vs. BSA, the suit in which the BSA retained the right to determine who is or is not qualified to be a Scoutmaster, the Supremes held for the BSA. However, it seemed to be their opinion that, while the BSA (as a private organization) had the right to so discriminate, the basis for their discrimination was wrong. It will be interesting to see whether the Supremes will allow the Federal government to retain the right to define what a marriage consists of.
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.