Posted on 10/10/2004 3:19:56 PM PDT by schaketo
Good comments.
Go re read you research, if in fact you did any. As I believe was said earlier, we have a maral issue we stand by here in this country. Also, any child who lacks a mother or who lacks a father, feels an empty void due to that missing parent of the other sex, male or female, mother or father, all their lives, and overcompensates in sometimes distructive ways to fill that void.
In fact, that is the main reason, when children are adopted they feel the biological need to find their birth parents, and when a divorce takes a parent away from that child, they are compelled to find that parent later in life. To have both parents is a biologically "normal" state of life. That is why you have so many saying marriage is about children. FACT
I think you need to recheck your reading comprehension. I pointed out that the Scandinavian demographics prove there is no inherent correlation between births being "out of wedlock", and children living with both natural parents. Scandinavia is full of male-female couples living together with their biological children, without possessing a government-issued marriage certificate. And the U.S, in which few jurisdictions recognize gay marriages or "civil unions", is chock full of children living with only one parent, either after divorce, or in situations where the father was never living with the mother in the first place (much less married).
Did you read about the homosexual lawyer who recently had a screaming fit in court because the word "homosexual" was used? He said it was demeaning and insulting, a "slur", and demanded that no one use it. There was an article about this on FR not too long ago.
In the UK it is illegal to publicly use the word "homosexual" - I don't know if under all cicrcumstances or by the media and gov't or what. But the word "homosexual" is considered negative, so the word "gay" is mandatory. (Exactly what circumstances again, I'm not sure.) But such control of speech is being slaveringly anticipated by the homo-nazis.
"Faggot" and "queer" have been around for decades, and homosexuals call themselves and each those words as well. You think you'll see media sycophants use those words?
Gay means happy, carefree and joyful. It does not indicate sodomy.
"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely
overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the
common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be
subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready
to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal
invader." --Samuel Adams
Luckily, almost no one on earth agrees with you.
Your position isn't conservative--as you claim--it's ultra-libertarian. That's fine. Admit what you are. Embrace it. But you aren't a conservative, and you can't admonish conservatives for not being libertarians.
Untouched are my questions about the regulation of family practices. Does government have the right to require Christian Scientists to get medical attention for their children? What about corporal punishment? Obviously there is a point where this becomes harm. It isn't obvious to me that this point of law should be left up to individuals alone. Your argument has a problem, because in many cases it's up to the polity to decide when in fact any actual harm has occurred.
Untouched also the question of abortion. Regulation of personal reproductive procedure, or is there a human harmed in the process? Government needs to make that call, one way or the other, as a matter of life or death.
All pure libertarian arguments ultimately fail because the answer to the question of actual harm is seldom clear cut, and must be decided--by government--in advance. That is why government of, by, and for the people matters.
I just checked all of your comments, and you have an incredible number of egregious misspellings.
Do you mind if I ask how old you are? Have you ever voted, if you're old enough to vote?
I think you're missing my point, which is that the existence of government-issued marriage licenses has no inherent connection to whether a child grows up in a home with the same two parents all along the way. Married couples who stay together and raise children together are doing so because they want to -- they would not abandon their lifestyle if the government stopped issuing licenses for it, or starting issuing licenses for for other family arrangements. Given that the government-issued licenses accomplish nothing, and are intrusive into the lives of free citizens, they should be discontinued.
knifedge2112 aka iamapirate2112, jamama2112, jjbinxazz, mgandhi2112yahoocom, Darryl Revok, FRockville, divadevour, boycottliberalfnc, hillaryishitler, saruman2112. saruman2112, ReverendDaniel, VaporTrails, Gellieman, Vishnu2112, KuckFerry, RightWingTeenager, War On Pretzels, akfasf, fishermann1234, republicanshateminorities, proudpatriot2112, MuslimHater, tahiya911atyahoodotcom, doctorekhs, uownz, ConcernedConservativeLady, protectus111, protectus1111, hoowahh1, et al, nuked again.
Thanks, Jim. I smelled him/her/it immediately.
Just for the record, this is the freepmail I sent knifedge right before he/she/it got zotted:
"Why freepmail me? Why not post on the open forum?
I don't think you are conservative. I don't think you mean any of the things you say on your profile page. I think you are a troll attempting to make actual conservatives look like the whackjob that you appear to be.
I could be wrong. But I'm pretty good at sniffing out trolls.
Time will tell.
If you're not a troll, you must be a whack job."
These issues do not concern consenting adults. I never said there wasn't a proper role for government in regulating behavior towards children or non-consenting adults. Obviously these issues you mention -- and a lot of others -- present a lot of gray area over which reasonable people may debate exactly where government involvement is warranted. The decisions of one or more adults to set up housekeeping and raise a family does not. One-man-one-woman marriages are hardly devoid of horrible cases of child abuse and neglect, and government standards for intervening should be the same, regardless of what assortment of adults are in the home. There are married heterosexual fathers who rape their minor daughters and there are cohabiting gay men who rape their minor sons and there are polygamist fathers who force their adolescent daughters into "marriages" with much older relatives (in the latter case, often with a government-issued marriage certificate) -- all should be ruthlessly prosecuted for what they're doing to the not-capable-of-consenting minors. They should not be prosecuted or discriminated against by government for whatever they're doing with each other with mutual consent (and likewise, government should not be interfering with private citizens, businesses, landlords, and other private organizations, which wish to discriminate against any of these groups).
Homosexuals and heterosexuals already have equal and exactly the same rights in regard to marriage.
Exactly right. Even when the "divide" is 70% against gay marriage.
Exactly right.
The decisions of one or more adults to set up housekeeping and raise a family does not.
Exactly wrong.
You offer NO rationale for this particular area being off-limits except that it's your personal opinion that it should be off limits. Your personal opinion that it presents no harms. Your personal opinion that people who are so sexually confused that they've rendered themselves incapable of a basic biological function are capable of consenting. Your personal opinion that playing house with government approval is the same thing as being married (and that the state has the same interest in promoting pretend marriages as real ones). Your opinion is worth no more or less than mine. That's why the polity decides these issues, not people--like you, or activist judges--who think your merest unsubstantiated opinions trump all others.
As I said, you're making a libertarian argument, not a conservative one. The question of what constitutes harm is one answered for society by a number of institutions, NOT by individuals, except in the fantasy world of libertarian utopia.
I think that most of the gay organizations are starting to wish they had never pushed this issue in the first place.
Things must have been looking pretty good from their point of view. They had pretty much locked in equality in the workplace, knocked down an anti-sodomy law in Texas and have (generally speaking) succeeded in painting anyone who opposed their agenda as "fascist hate-mongers".
If they had stopped there, they could have gotten away with it -- but they had to push, nay, attempt to ram, gay-marriage down past America's tonsils and were unprepared for the backlash.
Gays don't really want to be married. Marriage is just a ploy to help them feel like they still belong to society.
So called "homosexuals" are queers, "african-americans" are blacks and "unmarried women" should be known as miss. All of these other terms came out of political correctness, which is another case for the books
You offer no facts but only lame insults. The few studeis that have been done show that these co-habitating couples who have children in these country are two to three times more likely split up than married couple. The family situation in these Scandanavian countries is an absolute mess thanks to the kind of godless society you would like to see.
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.