Posted on 09/04/2004 3:25:40 PM PDT by outlawcam
I don't think I suggested it was rocket science.
You and people like you reinforce the opposition, including Obama, instead of reinforcing Keyes.
How are homosexuals denied the right to life, liberty and property?
What are you talking about?
Where did I EVER suggest "that Jesus would accept and condone homosexuality"?
I have ALWAYS taken the position that homosexuality is sin according to the Bible.
Perhaps you should read my posts next time, before you respond? (just a suggestion)
He's not giving them hell. He just tells the truth and they think it's hell. :-)
Thanks for posting that. It puts it into an entirely new light for me. I've been around long enough to know that I shouldn't trust the media to report things in the proper context.
EV;And of course, you misrepresent Mr. Keyes. No way on God's green earth that he believes that that is the ONLY reason homosexuality is wrong. Quit building your arguments on shifting sand.
You are one of the funniest posters on FR.
Because you continue to argue even when you have nothing left to defend.
I NEVER said ANYTHING about the totality of what Keyes believed on the subject of homosexuality.
I was simply responding to the arguments he presented in the article. Comprende?
You just can't admit it when you're proven wrong.
You: "I NEVER said ANYTHING about the totality of what Keyes believed on the subject of homosexuality."
You prior to that: "I was simply responding to his argument as it was stated. And it was flawed. Procreation is not the ONLY reason homosexuality is wrong."
Sheesh, you even put it in caps. You're not even agreeing with yourself now, man.
The homosexual solution is simple. End the push for marriage. Utilize available civil remedies in place of legal marriage.
He says procreation is the "POINT" of marriage.
You should reread his statement. He says procreation is the point of the "INSTITUTION" of marriage. Not the point of marriages.
Keyes is against homosexual sex because it does not lead to procreation. This is based on logic, not on Biblical teachings. It leaves the door open to acceptance of homosexual sex if they can find a way to procreate.
I could be wrong, but I think this answers your question. It is the premise upon which his argument is based, and it is both biblical and absolute.
Keyes: "The definition and understanding of marriage is 'the two become one flesh.' In the child, the two transcend their persons and unite together to become a new individual. That can only be done through procreation and conception. It cannot be done by homosexuals."
Counter his argument instead of leveling ad hominems.
Maybe the Republican Party needs hell embarrassed out of them a little more. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
This is getting silly. I know that successful procreation is not a requirement for a marriage. So does Dr. Keyes. The moral foundation upon which God has established the marriage covenant, as revealed in Genesis and referred to by Dr. Keyes, is a male/female relationship -- ALONE. Dr. Keyes refers to procreation as a qualifying characteristic for the kind of two people who can enter this married relationship.
Who can procreate? Only a man and a woman. Can every man and every woman procreate successfully? No Can they still marry if they can't procreate? Yes Who can marry? Only a man and a woman. The "essence" [his wording] of the two marriage partners is this male/female paradigm which "includes" procreation, but does not require it. Why is this so hard? [Going off to bed now]
I think you have that backwards. What favorable tax and insurance benefits do they get that are not available to homosexuals who happen to be a "couple?"
So what is your excuse?
"Keyes has run in four elections, and has lost every single one."
You mean, other politicians have never lost elections? Hmmm . . . seems like our current president lost a few, as well as his dad. And don't forget that Mr. Obama lost big time in a couple of races, too.
How about we do something novel and help Alan win this one?
Given the number of people who voiced support for Keyes on Jim Robinson's thread who rarely if ever post on these 'Keyes' threads I think we can safely dismiss the above statement as pure unadulterated Bravo Sierra.
Lima Charlie. ;)
Would it be fair to say that since sinkspur, et al, always seem to show up on these "Keyes" threads that they could be considered Keyes cultists? They just can't seem to leave the man alone.
I think he has a strong opinion that will not be changed no matter what we say. More power to him. He's probably a good enough guy; I just wish he would do something more productive than bash Keyes--who has offered the President his support for his conduct in the war on terror. It seems we all have more to build on as allies than we can achieve by being enemies.
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.