Posted on 07/06/2006 5:49:43 PM PDT by Sunsong
The issue is homosexual sex -those that feel rights should be afforded others based upon their feelings or actual choice to engage in homosexual activity versus those that consider such thinking absurd. Regardless the window dressing you wish to hoist upon the issue -that is the issue...
I will cool my jets when you cease posting leftist propaganda and leftist promotion of homosexual sex premised "rights"...
They already had "gay marriage". It was called Civil Unions. The only reason they want to get "married" is to force priests/preachers/etc to marry, or lose their tax exempt status. Its a bit analogous to when Satan tried to force God's hand (in keeping his Son from the cross) and forcing Him to "start over" in Eden.
Because the State has to arbitrate disputes regarding the rearing of children, and the natural institution for the care and nurture of children is the family that is headed by a man and woman committed to each other for life.
So the regulation of natural marriage is the business of the State.
What in the world are you talking about? Who is *they*? Who has civil unions and where (in what states) do they have them?
Your analogy is overly dramatic, imo.
Actually, it is more complex than that. One of the issues is whether all citizens have the same liberties. Another issue is whether civil unions or something along those lines provides the same liberties as *marriage*. But one issue that it is not is the one you describe - based on sexual acts. People are free to engage or not engage in sexual acts as long as they are not harming anyone else. The question is: why do some people *feel* that their view of sexual acts should negate others' views?
Not necessarily. It's good to hate sin.
You are free to hate, surely. And sometimes we do. But every thought we think produces a chemical in the body. Emotion, intense emotion like hatred, produce a lot more chemical than one thought does.
You harm your body with negative emotions like hatred, jealousy, envy, blame, hostility etc. And the *object* of your hatred, jealousy, envy, blame, hostility etc - will probably never know a thing about it. It accomplishes nothing or next to nothing. But I would agree - if your belief system is such that you feel hatred - better to express it appropriately than to suppress or repress it.
That question rightly as specific to homosexual sex should be debated on a leftist wacko website like DU -not here on FR. As such I will not engage in such absurd debate to give it platform here and again suggest you take it elsewhere...
It is impossible for two men or two women to marry since marriage is the lifelong union of a man and woman, the primary purpose of which is the begetting and raising of children.
Do people have unalienable rights to do the irrational, nonsensical, absurd or meaningless?
Of course not, since eternal unalienable rights derive from an eternal source, which is God. God does not grant us an absolute right to do the irrational, since God is rationality itself.
There are times when irrationality may be legally permitted for prudential reasons, i.e., when irrationality is fairly harmless, or when the harm to society caused by criminalization is greater than the harm to society caused by legal sanction.
But homosexual "marriage" is a form of irrationality that is very harmful. Legal sanction of homosexual "marriage" entitles homosexuals to legal adoption, which is very harmful to children, since it is natural for children to be raised by their parents, a man and woman, and barring that, an adoptive man and woman.
Another important harm includes the promotion of the idea that homosexual relationships are morally equivalent to heterosexual relationships, which they most certainly are not. Such relationships are wholly unnatural and disordered.
I would suggest that you cannot debate other ideas and that is why you attempt to bully and control the information and views expressed here on Free Republic. I can understand that you are fearful. But it would really be of benefit for you to engage in discussion on this topic because, as I say, some form of civil unions or domestic partnerships are going to happen in any number of states. It may feel safer to retreat into the past - but it won't change the future.
Fine. Hate it then. I don't agree with it however I worked several years ago with a homosexual and now with an out in the open lesbian (she's quite the hottie, sort of a shame IMHO). They know where I stand, I know where they stand. And we get along just fine. The point is don't use government to hate what you hold in disdain. One of the government's main purposes is protection of freedoms against others, not to limit our own freedoms to fit into your agenda.
My only exception is that the Framers did envision the separate and sovereign states would have the right to oversee such concerns as it pertained to the citizens of their respective states. But never at the federal level
So now I take it - you don't want to talk about hatred anymore? :-)
We disagree about inherent rights. I would suggest that since people engage in irrational, nonsensical, absurd or even meaningless actions and thoughts all the time - that that alone is proof that they have the inherent *right* to...at least in hundress if not thousands of cases :-) [they are not strck down by lightning, for instance :-)]
Whether it is legal or not is a decision of the people through the legislatures and the courts. And, as you say, we hopefully make those distinctions based on harm. We say that we are free to do whaever we please as long as we don't harm others. I like that and agree with it.
Whether or not the existence of homosexuals causes harm is a debate the people can have. I like what was posted here from Barry Goldwater. And I think that homosexuals make a good argument when they say that they want the same liberties as everyone else. They want the same financial perks from their partnerships as heterosexual couples get.
I live in Utah and I know that here gay men can adopt children. So that, if in conservative Utah, that is already settled... I don't know that you have much of an argument in saying that it shouldn't be allowed.
Suggest whatever irrelevant sideshow issues you want. I will point out that you cannot debate anything supporting any government sponsored and or imposed anything premised in homosexual sex. As such, you resort to posting leftist articles and propaganda pieces.
You want to debate then post something yourself supporting the homosexualization of society and get zotted otherwise your intent clearly is not to debate -your intent is simply to meekly support the homosexualization of society while hoping you do not get zotted...
I "feel" that you actually mean that men who feel like or choose to engage in homosexual sexual activity (nothing "gay" about it) can supposedly adopt children that are wards of the state...
Other than the homosexual sex requirement -what else does the state consider relevant to guaranteeing the safety of children placed with homosexual sex predisposed or practicing men?
Seems to me that you are very focused on the homosexual act. Wonder what that is about?
I am suggesting that some form of gay marriage (I used the word gay deliberately since it upsets you so) will be seen in several states - whether that be in 10 twenty or less than that number of years.
You may still be insisting that people talk about *the homosexual sex act* at that time. And it will be even more irrelevant at that time than it is now.
Whether people have sex, or how they have sex or if they refuse to have sex - as long as they are not forcing others to join them - is really none of you business:-) And, btw, that is the conservative postion.
SS has been posting drivel supporting hedonistic immoral crap for as long as I can remember. And no, I'm not pinging him/her to this comment to show my disgust for the many comments by him/her I've read.
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.