Posted on 09/04/2004 3:25:40 PM PDT by outlawcam
"Does Keyes think that if, because of disease or age or injury, a man or a woman is incapable of procreation, he or she should not be allowed to marry?"
I guess you didn't read the whole interview or your reading comprehension needs work.
Men can be fathers or father figures even if they are not the biological father of a child they raise (as in adopted children). Women can be mothers or mother figures ditto.
Two men taking care of a child cannot be a mother and a father. They are merely making a false show of family life. Men are different from women. A man cannot be a mother and a woman cannot be a father, either biologically, psychologically, or in any other way.
Of course, if one parent dies, the remaining father or mother can and does raise the children adequately. But nature's arrangement is that there needs to be (A) one man and (B) one woman, both to conceive and raise children.
You should read some of the research that's been done on kids raised by homosexuals. It doesn't look good.
"Neither do those who have the unfortunate lot of being born without sexual organs (or even without functioning sex organs). Should we ban them from getting married?"
This is such a specious argument. How many people first of all are born without sexual organs, and out of that miniscule number, how many want to get married? You're waaaay out in left field.
We're talking about men and women, not biological anomalies. And if, for the sake of argument, two such unfortunates wanted to get married, one would still have to be a woman and one would have to be a man. If they had sexual organs but non-functioning ones, of course they could marry. Remember, Keyes used the word "paradigm" when referring to the Doles. A man and a woman marrying even if unable to conceive children are still the template of a family. Every man is (or has the potential) to be a symbolic or real "father" and every woman a "mother".
There are plenty of legal means for homosexuals to resolve their legal issues other than marriage.
As far as the tax issue is concerned, a tax code that is fairer to all is the answer, as you suggest.
As for the military--- there are plenty of other people the military does not accept. I'd like to be a quarterback for the New York jets too. But I can't. That's the way it is.
Exactly.
They take advantage of every seeming nuance.
Children deserve both a mother and a father. If one dies, that is the fault of nature, and is hard enough for the children. To deliberately place a child in a situation where he has either no mother or no father is the ultimate in selfishness.
Children deserve both a mother and a father. If one dies, that is the fault of nature, and is hard enough for the children. To deliberately place a child in a situation where he has either no mother or no father is the ultimate in selfishness.
How can they be married in one state and then move to another and not be married? States rights work with many issues but not this one.
You completely misunderstand the dangers posed by the radical homosexual agenda and its purveyors and underestimate their power to corrupt everything they touch.
Well, they seem to have enough power to get you to argue on their behalf.
"Possible" transcript reflects the fact that I was uncertain of the interview's completeness, plus it was intermixed with some commentary. That's all. It appears to be fairly complete.
So? -- Let the gay activists & judges "foist" their marriage claims. -- You say they have no rights on this issue? -- Ignore them. Refuse to recognize those claims in your State or County.
-- No amendment necessary.
197 tpaine
____________________________________________________
ET writes:
Naive at best.
-199-
_________________________________________________
Naive? How so?
--- States are not required to recognize the unconstitutional acts of other States, or of the federal government.
Surely, -- you can agree with me on that point?
204 -tpaine-
_______________________________________
EternalVigilance wrote:
You completely misunderstand the dangers posed by the radical homosexual agenda and its purveyors and underestimate their power to corrupt everything they touch.
______________________________________
Not so.. IMO, you completely hype the dangers posed by the radical homosexual agenda and its purveyors and overestimate their power to corrupt everything they touch.
They are a bunch of girlymen.. Get a grip on reality.
_____________________________________
EternalVigilance wrote:
Well, they seem to have enough power to get you to argue on their behalf
_____________________________________
I'm arguing against playing girly games with our Constitution, bozo.
That's because you still lack a basic understanding of what the Founders called liberty.
I've seen that misunderstanding lead you in lots of strange directions over the last few years. This is just one more example.
So I'll repeat what I have said to you time and again: The Founders would have laughed at you for thinking that true God-given liberty included the right to do evil.
It didn't then, and it doesn't now.
Let's say a married, homosexual couple living in Massachusettes (which recognizes gay marriage) decides in their old age to move to Florida (which does not recognize gay marriage). You think they're not going to move? They'll move and they'll aggressively push the issue.
Once they get the right to be married in certain states, homosexuals will claim their liberty is hindered because they lack the right to relocate to a state of their choice AND have their marriage recognized. You and people like you will argue the same. It's about incrementalism and we know it.
Liberty does not mean people can do whatever the heck they want to do.
Homosexuals will argue that a particular state recognizes heterosexual marriages from other states and will win on those grounds.
How can they? You previously claimed: " -- No one has ever interpreted a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry in this country, until now. -- " - You and your State do not have to accept that "new ruling". Prove it's a BS opinion.
How can they be married in one state and then move to another and not be married? States rights work with many issues but not this one.
So you ~now~ admit they have a right to marry? --- Which is it? -- Here are your previous words:
Homosexuals NEVER had the right to marry in this country, until now. It is you and people and activist judges like you who want to extend "rights" that just aren't there.
Therefore, a consitutional amendment, is very much in need.
191 posted on 09/05/2004 11:40:10 AM PDT by TOUGH STOUGH
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.