Posted on 09/04/2004 3:25:40 PM PDT by outlawcam
Ofiscated? Do you mean obfuscated?
Keyes is a judgmental, holier-than-thou demagogue who isn't satisfied to just challenge differing views but has to characterize all those who disagree with him as evil.
He even labeled Bush as evil during the stem cell controversy.
My bet is Obama would LOVE to debate Keyes, because the comparison to Keye's seriously flawed personality will make Obama look EVEN more likable.
And I doubt Obama is worried about debating a terrible politician who never manages to get more than 21% of the vote.
I have the same impression.
I guess that makes you one of the more "tolerant" folks in the world. Congratulations.
. . . it's time for people in the conservative, thoughtful part to form a mutual declaration of facts society. Don't count on the MSM!
Where does it sound like that?
Jesus reprimanded the "experts on the Law" for their self-righteous, judgmental application of the law which was completely lacking in compassion and mercy.
If there is ANY comparison at all, Keyes would be on the wrong side of the exchange.
The fact is many heterosexual couples are also incapable of procreation.
Is their marriage therefore an "absurdity"?
Keyes' arguments are weak. This is NOT the main reason why marriage is reserved for a man and a woman.
Actually it makes me on of the folks who remembers Jesus saying "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy".
And what is 'the main reason'?
Please be precise.
... incidence and essence...
Here's how the conversation began:
Signorile's second sentence was: "What did you think of Vice President Cheney last week coming out and saying he doesn't agree with the President on the Federal Marriage Amendment? Seems to be a break with the party. Do you think he is sending a mixed signal?"
Alan Keyes, amiably replied: "I don't know. I think he is entitled to his personal convictions, but I think that the party's position is the correct one.
**************************************************
Seems to be clear that Alan Keyes is sticking with the Party's definition of marriage. Alan Keyes is not going out of his way to condemn those who practise various other forms of sexual pleasuring, only as they pertain to being defined as marriage.
The interviewer here is drawing him out [as he does to many others], placing his own definitions in Keyes' mouth, trying to trick him into agreeing with him.
It didn't work. In this regard it reminded me of those who taunted Jesus to get him to say something damning which they could use to condemn him. Mr. Signorile went home frustrated with Mr. Keyes.
The best he was able to do, was to take his own comment about Vice President Cheney's daughter, as being a "selfish hedonist" out of its context and attribute that statement to Mr. Keyes.
That much is pretty obvious isn't it?
The "main reason" can be found in the words of Jesus and His reference to the book of Genesis and God's created intent when if came to man, woman and marriage.
As Bill Bennet said;"Marriage is not an arbitrary construct which can be redefined simply by those who lay claim to it.Broadening the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions would stretch it almost beyond recognition--and new attempts to expand the definition still farther would surely follow."
Keyes argues that homosexuals should not marry because they cannot have children.
Well polygamist can procreate.
Does that mean marrying multiple wives is OK?
Keyes' argument is flawed.
If there is ANY comparison at all, Keyes would be on the wrong side of the exchange.
Well, no, not really. Ya see, Jesus understood the meaning behind the text, the true "spirit" of the law. Keyes did not miss it. The grace of marriage extends to the two (that being the man and the woman) who will become one. So, by the given text we have x + y = 1. Don't see x + x = 1 or y + y =1. If we want to say x + x or y + y is =1, well then we can certainly say that. Just note that it is we (not God) who is saying it!
That isn't really my definition of "essence" - it's my definition, or example, of "incident". Having a male and a female is essential to human reproduction. The accident of sterility of either partner doesn't change that essential fact. Having two people of the same sex is essentially non-reproductive - it doesn't just "happen" that the couple is sterile - it's sterile by design. You could look at it this way - if we devise of method of curing sterility, the sterile heterosexual couple can then reproduce but nothing more than a wholesale change in the human animal will allow a homosexual couple to reproduce with each other.
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.