Posted on 05/20/2004 12:56:33 PM PDT by NYer
The same arguments that homosexuals have used to justify allowing same-sex marriages can now be used by polygamists to justify polygamous marriages. Homosexuals claim that it is discriminatory to not allow homosexuals to marry, and that it is wrong to prevent people who love each other and commit themselves to each other from marrying. I can very easily imagine these very same words coming out of the mouth of polygamists as they argue their case in the courts and in front of the media. As far as making the argument that the tradition of marriage should be only between two people, for thousands of years the tradition of marriage had only been between a man and a women. I would hate to see polygamous marriages become legal, just as I hate to see same-sex marriages become legal. But once you give one special interest group a certain right or privilege, it will be difficult to keep other special interest groups from demanding that same right or privilege.
"we can thank the heteros for demolishing the union such that homosexuals were in a position to claim equivalency in the first place."
This, I agree with. Sex is way more important than our sex-obsessed culture gives it credit for. Contraception, once accepted, is what makes gay "marriage" even "thinkable" in our wildest dreams. Not that most contracepting couples would think that their choice justifies homosexual sexual acts; and indeed, it does not; but it does lay the groundwork for the logic of it. Abortion does the same thing. I.E. sexual pleasure can he had without the possibility of reproduction . . .
I do, however, respectfully disagree with your point that homosexuals can enjoy the unitive perogatives of sexual giving. You can not truly unify things which are physically and even ontologically unsuited for union . . .
The need for tenderness and physical closeness aside, anal sex is only a sad (and unhealthy) imitation of sexual union. It is NOT sexual union. The anus is NOT a sex organ, for one thing.
==== 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?
What's your Modest Proposal?
Kids for only those with sufficient Cash?
Abort the progeny of the Unfit?
And who decides?
"she will lose. End of story"
Quite: even if she were the best woman (DNA-wise) in the Universe -- she would lose to a man (DNA-wise), in sports where muscle and bone structure make a difference.
To be fair, they would have to have competition between DNA-women; between DNA-men; between DNA-women who have been redefined as men; and between DNA-men who have been redefined as women. (Four groupings instead of two; and it would be quite easy to get a medal in two of those, it seems to me.) Otherwise, you cannot control for the sexual influences upon the growth and development of the body. OR we will have to just throw everyone in the same pot . . . and women will lose the capability to excel among their own.
"continuously having children "
Not at all; merely that one does not use artificial means to block the natural reproductive potential of the marital act.
=== I do, however, respectfully disagree with your point that homosexuals can enjoy the unitive perogatives of sexual giving
I don't think the tightest and longest lasting of the unions actually end up revolving around sex even if they started out that way.
However disordered at its essence, the bond is there. I'm not going to defend homosexuality but neither am I going to pretend "equivalence" where these 8, 16, 34, 50 year monogamous relationships and the "no fault" divorce crowd are concerned.
Their hearts are not for me to judge.
Thomas appears to concede the debate is over, and I can't say I disagree with him. FMA is an election year ploy by the president and will never become a part of the constitution. The momentum for gay marriage will continue to accelerate.
Better to "build up our side of the cultural divide," as Thomas suggests. Walk the walk. Keep your family intact and love your spouse and kids like you really mean it. In time the kids/guinea pigs who are raised in gay families are going to have a lot to say about the gay marriage experiment, mostly about identity crisis, trauma, confusion and pain. Their testimony might help open people's eyes to the absurdity of having two daddies or two mommies. But until they are present in society in great enough numbers to make an impact, something that probably won't happen for another twenty years minimum, the gay train will be whistling down the tracks, and there's not really a whole helluva lot conservatives can do about it.
How true!
Don't count me among the "no fault" divorce crowd, either. How many marriages would have stayed intact with more perseverence, were the "no fault" option not lurking ominously on the horizon?
However, the emotional need to be "one" with another does not make sexual exercises unitive, where sexual union is physically impossible. Human beings feel the need for unitive love; it cannot be had outside heterosexual marriage. Anything else is wishful thinking. And I totally agree that we are not to judge others' hearts. We can, however, look at the overal situation from a logical perspective.
>>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?!?
I am really not worried at all about this. Nobody pathetic enough to try to change their sex in the first place will have the patience and will to be an olympic athelete. It will be many years, if ever, before any transexual (meaning somebody who has actually had the operations, not just some male athlete dressed as a female) can beat the finest female atheletes in the world. In fact, I look forward to watching the female athletes kick transexual butt all over Athens.
I'm as concerned as you are about the US acceptance of depravity considered normal by our court system. I live in MASS, and had the issue of homosexual marriage been put to a vote, it would have been defeated soundly. Our courts systems, and to a lesser degree, our legislators, have been compromised by homosexual activists. They've been infiltrated by staffers that have promoting the homosexual agenda as their number one issue. We need to use the same strategy: take back the legislators; remove the activist judges.
Bump.
Carpet samples?
Can you say, Rene Richards?
LAMDA and ACTUP could all be ON STAGE with EfnK, and his news media propaganda machine would make sure that no American sheeple ever sees it on television. In short, he has no worries. What the commies don't want us to see, we will not see.
I believe that was already tabled. (public outcry) It keeps circulating like an urban legend.
Blame the ABA. This lawyers leftist guild created a model divorce code that SPECIFICALLY sought to remove children from marriage and push children as an "accessory" to couples.
I believe the next legal step should be to pass laws which alow children to have only ONE mother and ONE father. This happens all the time in divorce court where parties put in writing that the child will not be taught or conditioned to call anyone else mother or father.
This will terminate the whole heather has two mentally ill mothers.
Geez that is a fake. It is not being done. It is BS.
The homosexual went into the courts BECAUSE the courts are NOT democratic, they are not there to be the will of the people.
The next step is to hang this around the democrat parties neck like a noose and use it to hang them into oblivion. There must never again be a viable democrat party candidate ANYWHERE.
Ping.
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.