You're missing the point I think. Roe was affirmed by a 7 to 2 majority of the Court and was more than likely unique. It's conclusions depended on a strained reading of the right to privacy inherent in the 9th Amendment, but failed to address the obviously important question of whether or not the fetus is a person with a soul. Most people, just as the Catholic Church did for 1200 years, believe that at least in the 2d and 3d trimester it likely is, barring scientific evidence to the contrary, I believe the court should have leaned toward the fetus' 4th and 5th Amendment rights as a "person".
But I think I stated earlier, neither I nor anyone agrees with all USSC decisions. I am convinced that today, if Roe is revisited, it would either be curtailed or struck down completely by a 5 to 4 majority. Nonetheless, it belongs in the states. It is not a right in any sense of the 9th Amendment.
Not so. If not barred by an amendment, homosexual marriage will be a major concern for me and for every American in the future whose moral compass isn't as screwed up as that of the small minority of Americans who either want sodomite partners given the same status as marriage between opposite sexes, or those like you who apparently don't care either way.
Let's keep me out of the discussion. I am nobody. But I have stated on numerous occasions, that I would vote against it in my state. It is not a national issue except for the DOMA. And I continue to maintain that 10 or 20 years of liberal Democrat leadership will change the face of this Country in so many ways, infringing on the rights of free Americans, reducing the powers of the state, and redefining our capitalistic system such that as I said, gay marriage will be the least of our concerns.
That may not concern you, but it does those of us who care about the moral fiber of the environment in which our children and their children are raised and nurtured.
Many things concern me, not just gay marriage. But I must be true to my belief in a republican form of government, that assumes states will not all act in unison in almost any area, moral, economic, criminal, licensing, etc. I don't like gay marriage in Massachusetts, but I also just as firmly believe that the people of Massachusetts can make that decision. It is none of mine...or yours.
This is an area where so-called conservatives who profess a belief in the misnamed "states' rights", turn completely around and demand that all states must agree with their definition of morality. They are misguided and wrong.
When I voted in favor of Amendment 2 in Colorado, I, like others, bought into the idea that homosexuals needed no new protections, and had all the protections from discrimination the rest of us had. Only later did I learn that the small group of fundamentalists who were fully committed to their anti-gay philosophy, and who pushed through the amendment, had a different agenda. They were attempting to ensure that no law was ever enacted that recognized homosexuality as having any rights. The USSC saw through that far quicker than any of us who voted for it did.
Those here who constantly decry the sex acts of homosexuals seem to conveniently ignore the fact that most heterosexuals engage in similar acts. Why is that alright, but the former isn't, if as they state, the reason for sex is procreation? Surely they must have the same disdain for all birth controls? They call homosexual sex simply recreational sex, but ignore the fact that almost all heterosexual sex is recreational.
They condemn homosexuals as aids producers, but condemn even more every attempt by a homosexual couple to stay monogamous. Go figure.
They tell you that there is no cause of homosexuality, that it is nothing but a choice, while refusing to give any consideration of medical studies to the contrary. Why? It is simply because if it does turn out to be genetic, then it is something created by God, and since God cannot do wrong, homosexuals have to be "natural". This is why they perpetuate their "choice" theory with absolute gusto.
Their reasons for wanting an amendment to "protect marriage" is no more than an attempt to dictate to states what they may do. It has nothing to do with DOMA. Their tactics are as ruthless as any leftist ever dreamed of. There can be no discussion, no debate. They quickly run off anyone who who remotely questions their facts, or their motives. I have been threatened many times, and called every name in the book from perverse, to gay lover, to leftist, to Marxist, and just a couple of days ago...terrorist. And all from good Christians...and so-called conservatives. Amen and take care.
I have some problems with your reference to a 9th Amendment right to privacy, but I'll let it go as it's not germane to the present discussion about Romer and gay "marriage".
However, your discussion of homosexuality itself, particularly whether or not its genetic, contains some theological errors regarding Christianity.
From a Christian standpoint, it doesn't make a bit of difference if homosexuality is genetic. If it is genetic, then it's an error. Ditto if it's hormonal.
Theologically, the fall of Adam & Eve led to error entering the world, and that would include genetic error. We all have sinful desires of some sort. We just don't all have the same ones. And those desires may be genetic. But it's our responsibility as Christians to resist those desires.
If John has a desire to steal, he should resist it. If Joan has a desire to lie, she should resist it. If Jim has a desire to be heterosexually promiscuous, he should resist it. If Jamie has a tendency to become an addict, she should resist it. And if Joe has a desire to engage in sex with another man, he should resist it.
Everyone has a desire to sin in some way or another. Where do those desires come from? Are they sociological, genetic, spiritual, or a combination of the three? We may never fully know, but wherever they come from, we are to do our best to resist them. We aren't to say, hey, this sin might be genetic, so let's enshrine it as a right and shut down any opposition to this sin.
All sins might have a genetic component.
You wrote that many people comdemn homosexuals for spreading AIDS but condemn even more homosexuals who try to stay monogamous. Sorry, but that's the rhetoric of a gay "marriage" activist. It's also untrue. I've heard Christians object to ALL homosexual sex, as they should, but I've never heard of one who opposes homosexual monogamy more than homosexual promiscuity. The allegation that they do is a phony argument put forward by gay "marriage" proponents.
It goes like this: You Christians scream about how promiscuous gays are, but then you oppose gay "marriage", which would allow them to be monogamous!
The problem with that lame argument is that gays can be monogamous without being married. Period. Are you arguing that gays are wildly promiscuous and engage in wanton, anonymous sex in bath houses only because we lack gay "marriage" in America?
Gays will always be promiscuous, but their promiscuity was at least restrained somewhat back when homosexuality was in the closet. Once it was unleashed, that's when AIDS spread like wildfire. Those people such as yourself who are "tolerant" of the gay lifestyle killed thousands of times more homosexuals than so-called "gay bashers" ever did, through your misguided sympathies for their perversion.
Those here who constantly decry the sex acts of homosexuals seem to conveniently ignore the fact that most heterosexuals engage in similar acts. Why is that alright, but the former isn't, if as they state, the reason for sex is procreation? Surely they must have the same disdain for all birth controls? They call homosexual sex simply recreational sex, but ignore the fact that almost all heterosexual sex is recreational.They condemn homosexuals as aids producers, but condemn even more every attempt by a homosexual couple to stay monogamous. Go figure.
They tell you that there is no cause of homosexuality, that it is nothing but a choice, while refusing to give any consideration of medical studies to the contrary. Why? It is simply because if it does turn out to be genetic, then it is something created by God, and since God cannot do wrong, homosexuals have to be "natural". This is why they perpetuate their "choice" theory with absolute gusto.
The quoted above is clearly a pro-homosexualization of society posting, an attempt to compare normal procreatively ordered and socially accepted heterosexual sex with that of disordered socially condemned homosexual sex. The posting as well attempts to disparage MANY moral conservative and religious positions ALL in attempt to moral relatively hoist up homosexual sex to the acclaim recognized it on DU or any other liberal and or leftist Internet venue... This type of leftist manifesto posting is supposedly not given a platform on FR:
What Free Republic is all about:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Request FR moderate the leftist messages this poster seems self-destructively not able to self moderate...