Posted on 09/04/2004 3:25:40 PM PDT by outlawcam
Nope. It's the freedom to do good without interference.
The idea that they are all the stereotypical girly men is completely inaccurate and you know it.
Today, in many ways we have the complete opposite.
Indeed.
Black is white, white is black, good is evil, evil is good.
But thankfully, most American's consciences are not yet totally seared.
That's why we win with the public on these core issues like the homosexual agenda and abortion, when the people themselves are allowed to decide instead of some liberal judge living in some leftleaning ivory tower.
No, I don't think there is a right in the constitution for homosexual marriage anymore than there is a right to privacy that entitles one to an abortion.
Right.
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.
216 tpaine
_____________________________________
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.
217 -bozo ev-
_____________________________________
I'm laughing at your pitiful attempt to claim I'm advocating some strange "evil". Try to regain control of your emotions.
Why the juvenile insults?
You initiated the 'juvenile insults', by claiming I was arguing on behalf of the queer agenda. --- Here:
______________________________________
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.
213 tpaine
______________________________________
Well, they seem to have enough power to get you to argue on their behalf.
214 -ev-
Your problem is that like most liberals, you see rights in the constitution that simply aren't there.
So, you see an intrinsic right to homosexual acts in the Constitution, eh?
Funny no one else did til this degraded generation.
It's also 'funny' that someone like yourself who claims to be such a constitutionalist can support something that the Founders would have without a doubt opposed with all their strength.
Like most authoritarians, you see State powers where they are not needed and never delegated.
I'm well aware that you have a problem with some of our basic individual rights.
It's quite amazing how many here at FR advocate a 'not quite so free republic'. -- Not that I mind.
Gotta love a target rich environment.
230 -tpaine-
EternalVigilance wrote:
So, you see an intrinsic right to homosexual acts in the Constitution, eh? Funny no one else did til this degraded generation.
Yep EV, even sexual deviants have rights to life, liberty, & property, unless they harm someone with their acts, and are convicted of crimes.
Shocking concept to you, is it?
It's also 'funny' that someone like yourself who claims to be such a constitutionalist can support something that the Founders would have without a doubt opposed with all their strength.
I don't like queers any more than they did. -- I too tend to ignore them. -- It's the American way.
Given the charges you leveled in your post, it seemed like reasonable speculation...but I gave an alternative in case it didn't fit.
In other words, we are to regard Mr. Keyes just the way you regard Mr. Keyes, and then we are to shut up. Correct ?
I never said anything of the kind. You are entitled to your opinion. I just asked you to resort to your reason instead of your ad hominems. I do not think the invective is productive.
I assure you that your hostility towards me is unfounded.
By the way, Outlaw, Mr. Keyes prefers to be addressed as "Dr. Dream".
And you wonder why I even dare suggest the word "hatred?"
New grant gives state a license to promote healthier marriages (Alaska)
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1208110/posts
What hath Keyesian politics wrought?
I've read on FR the laws and punishments against sodomy and particularly same sex acts in the early days of America - even up to the mid 19th century, the punishments were extremely severe. Around the time of the Revolution the punishment was often death. Jefferson changed the Virginia punishment to merely castration. The founders obviously did not think highly of same sex activities. They would be dumbfounded at the discussions now about homosexuality. They would think people have gone mad.
And they would be right.
You're right. But I don't know how important this distinction really is to the argument.
I mean, what's the difference between the "INSTITUTION" of marriage, and marriage?
Counter his argument instead of leveling ad hominems.
Why should I?
Do you agree with him that President Bush is more "evil" than Clinton when it comes to the stem cell research?
Do I really need to convince you that Keyes is over the top with these kinds of remarks?
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.