Posted on 10/19/2004 5:17:28 PM PDT by TaxRelief
Birth defects such as you suggest do exist. However, To use a medical condition (physical abnormality) to justify perversion is absurd. The radical militant homosexual activists will use things like that to legitimize two otherwise healthy (no physical defects) men living together sodomizing each other and demand that society call their perverted relationship a "marriage" and enact laws that will allow them to teach our children perversion in the school systems.
As to your question about the Federal Marriage Amendment, Amending the Constitution is the only way to close the legal loophole that allows the activist judges to grant legal status to a group of people based on their perverted sexual preference/behavior.
LOL here's one that almost got away.
This is the third time I have said this; if these issues are NOT address before you put a marriage amendment on the ballot, then they will be interpreted by the courts that you oppose.
The radical militant homosexual activists will use things like that to legitimize two otherwise healthy (no physical defects) men living together sodomizing each other
So you want government in the bedrooms of consenting adults that you disagree with. And you call yourself conservative.
and demand that society call their perverted relationship a "marriage" and enact laws that will allow them to teach our children perversion in the school systems.
I am against any sex-ed whatsoever taught schools because, for the most part, all it produces is single teenage unwed welfare mothers and their welfare babies.
At the time of the Constitutional Convention Sodomy, Abortion among other things were against the law. The SCOTUS just recently struck down the sodomy laws. These judges are legislating from the bench.
So you want government in the bedrooms of consenting adults that you disagree with. And you call yourself conservative.
The radical militant homosexual activists are not (In their bedrooms) They are waging a perverted culture war demanding access to Churches, Schools, Youth groups, ETC. ETC. The marjority does not "consent" to their demands and THE JUDGES are forcing it onto society.
I am against any sex-ed whatsoever taught schools because, for the most part, all it produces is single teenage unwed welfare mothers and their welfare babies.
We agree on that!
Questions that contain statements are, well, statements.
Interesting how you mention abortion and homosexuality in the same sentence, as if the murder of unborn badies were the same thing as two consenting adults having sex.
I actually agree with striking down laws that had government in the bedroom of consenting adults.
The radical militant homosexual activists are not (In their bedrooms) They are waging a perverted culture war demanding access to Churches, Schools, Youth groups, ETC. ETC. The marjority does not "consent" to their demands and THE JUDGES are forcing it onto society.
Yes, and you're waging a war against them on an economic front, boycotting any privating owned company that offers even the littlest of benefits to homosexuals.
Some people here like to gloat about how they support the right of private business owners; then toward around and seek to boycott and destroy any private business with eithics they disagree with.
If seems for the most that the zealot fundamentalists on one side and the fanatical marxists on the other side have whipped both sides of this issue into such a frenzy that neither side with settle from nothing less than the absolute silence of their opposition.
It's a M.A.D. situation and it seems I am the only one who sees this!!
If seems = It seems
The context in which the terms were used is a legal context. activist judges declared "both" unconstitutional
I actually agree with striking down laws that had government in the bedroom of consenting adults.
What about the perverts that plauge the parks, public restrooms, roadside rest stops, truckstops etc. etc. They are like vampires lurking in the shadows, A man can't even stop for a rest stop anymore, or take his family to a park.
Yes, and you're waging a war against them on an economic front, boycotting any privating owned company that offers even the littlest of benefits to homosexuals.
Homosexuals are responsable for 2/3 of all HIV/AIDS cases in the U. S. don't take my word for it The CDC documents this fact I do not want to pay higher insurance premiums because of the behavior of others.
It's a M.A.D. situation and it seems I am the only one who sees this!!
What about other perverted marriage issues "poligamy" and such? I have a cousin who's wife is always defending homo-marriage, I would love to see the look on her face when her husband says "honey i'm home and brought my second wife! WHAT? You don't like it? well divorce me then... BTW you no longer get half, you are only entitled to a third.
But I sure hate to imagine that senario when the first wife in question is my daughter and my grandchildren though.
For two completely different reason and the court case were 40 years apart.
What about the perverts that plauge the parks, public restrooms, roadside rest stops, truckstops etc. etc. They are like vampires lurking in the shadows, A man can't even stop for a rest stop anymore, or take his family to a park.
Most of that is urban myth. I have traveled some and have yet to see any of what you have listed.
Homosexuals are responsable for 2/3 of all HIV/AIDS cases in the U. S. don't take my word for it The CDC documents this fact I do not want to pay higher insurance premiums because of the behavior of others.
Insurance companies are a racket, they jack-up premiums on everyone the moment one of their comstumers sneezes.
Also, it doesn’t help when any efforts made by private companies to promote monogamous long-term relationships for homosexuals gets them boycotted by those who are completely against homosexuality.
The problem on the health issue is almost no one is promoting monogamy for homosexuals. And those that do are criticized for it.
What about other perverted marriage issues "poligamy"
If you mean 'polygamy', that issue has come up many times because of the hetrosexual Mormons.
Good point. Homosexuality wouldn't be an issue if so many Christians hadn't found divorce, extramarital sex, shacking up, pornography and abortion so acceptable.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't tack one more deviant thing onto an already too long list.
The problem is some people use being anti-homosexual as a crutch that they use to define themselves as being christians while totally ignoring the teachings of Jesus and the Ten Commandments.
To be honest, I find the entire situation insane.
Welcome to earth Paul... What planet are you from ?.. A prolonged discussion on blue laws and legislating morality awaits you.. By the way; sex is a big issue here, like sex with children, animals, rape, all like that.. Seems that some humans would have sex with a snake if they could figure out which end to violate.. and would probably sue who whoever sold it to them; when it BIT THEM...
I couldn't agree with you more.
Oh sure, I know Paul from way back. He trots out this red herring every now and then but generally to justify that intersex disorder has a direct connection to transgenderism...which is BS.
Paul, you should know by now that AIS is gender specific and sex assignment is consistent upon diagnosis. There would be ambiguity what gender someone is if there were a marriage amendment because sex is determined at birth. And since homosexuality is no more frequent in the intersex community than the rest of the population, as you have insinuated before, your tired arguments are nothing more than a smoke screen.
Now go promote your justifications for perversion somewhere else and let the adults talk for a while, OK Junior?
I am pointing out holes in the arguement fro a marriage amendment. Better to have those holes pointed out now than by some lawyer in a court room with a liberal judge.
then but generally to justify that intersex disorder has a direct connection to transgenderism...which is BS.
That deals with the BSTc region of the brain, but that is beside the point. I have pointed out on the thread that genital birth defects could be used to destroy the marriage amendment if they are not addressed now before the marriage amendment is put on the ballot.
But you also connected it to intersex disorders in your previous blatherings, quit being disingenuous. So why don’t you trot out your KVAERNER study again so we can all see how the largest BST size of females coincides with the smallest size of men’s when no trangenderism disorder exclusively exists in those extremes. Not to mention that some of those samples were from people taking hormone supplements OR for that matter that there is NO conclusive proof that BST size has ANY direct and consistant correlation to transgenderism pathology.
I have pointed out on the thread that genital birth defects could be used to destroy the marriage amendment if they are not addressed now before the marriage amendment is put on the ballot.
And that’s not going to happen because sex assignment is made at birth when the particular intersex disorder is diagnosed. ALL syndromes are gender specific; your AIS example is always gender specific depending on whether it’s CAIS or what degree of PAIS the patient falls into. Your concerns are not credible.
Mainly because you are acting like a jerk, you consider anything I say to be 'blatherings' and the fact you do not even want to stay on topic, which is the marriage amendment, homosexuality, and possible logic holes that need to be addressed in the marriage amendment before it goes on the ballot.
I’ve addressed it twice, pointed out why your “example” is erroneous and neither time have you responded. You’ve used your intersex argument before in connection with transgenderism pathology so I thought it might be interesting for DirtyHarryY2K and scripter to see how you distort certain sciences in your support of homosexuality.
Now I’ve pointed out that AIS is gender specific and you’ve not challenged that fact. CAIS is always assigned female, PAIS with predominantly female external genitalia is assigned female gender and PAIS with ambiguous genitalia or predominantly male genitalia is always assigned males gender. Case closed. Your argument is ridiculous.
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.