Posted on 08/14/2006 11:00:29 PM PDT by pissant
two men and two women getting together is not "marriage" and they need to find their own word
This is the best take on it I've yet seen.
Alan Keyes has an interesting point of view, not wholly different from this.
He maintains that it is a question of 'incidence' and 'essence', that is to say that it is incidental that one of the benefits of marriage is physical pleasure. Of course on that point heterosexual and homosexual unions are equal. That heterosexual unions- and heterosexuality being the essence here- are the only unions physically capable of producing life is precisely what makes them unique.
Try explaining THAT to a liberal.
Sowell reasoning is impeccable and correct. The only problem here is the correct reasoning means nothing to liberals.
One if you want it!
But then does that mean we can deny "Marriage" to people too old to have children? Or if one member of the couple is infertile?
If gay marriage is ever recognized in the U.S., I want three wives. No husbands. If I only had two, then they would gang up on me. With three, I stand a better chance with a divide and survive strategy. One too many beers tonight.
For your list . . .
Sowell ping...
This same, tired argument used by the homoadvocates is really getting to sound as stupid as their other arguments against obvious reality.
Man/woman unions, on the whole, ALWAYS produce children. Unions of homosexuals NEVER produce children.
Ewwwww Powell is soooooo hateful --- LOL
Interesting points - his contention that marriage is a limitation of the individual's freedom in relationship to others is a useful perspective.
Lesbians have artificial insemination.
Although 'marriage' is an intermediate goal for homosexuals, my belief is that their real goal is complete social acceptance. Since they have been unable to achieve that through social contact they now wish to forcefully achieve it through courts and the law by route of 'marriage'.
Their 'end run' for acceptance is through the public education system, in which they seem to be making moderate, but steady, progress.
Whether they will achieve that is still a point of discussion.
Yah, but the sperm ain't coming from her "partner"
And, before you start w/ the some couples using sperm donors, the majority of us didn't use anything but plain old man/woman sex to get our kids.
Men and woman are very different creatures who are designed to function together for the best of themselves and society as a whole.
As usual, Dr. Sowell is presenting the arguments and exposing the rational and logical fallacies found therein. He doesn't tell what he thinks of the government being involved in marriage, but the body of his writing would probably indicate he wouldn't approve. He's not a complete laissez faire libertarian, but he has strong sympathies toward the Austrians.
All this is lipstick on the pig, though. The government needs to be out of the business of managing and sactioning marriage. This would then become a non-issue as it would be something handled completely within the realm of the church.
society rewards the INSTITUTION not the individual. Society has a future interest in rewardig an institution which most ensures the future of the society.
Homosexuals seek to reward the individual based on achieving an orgasm. Homosexuals do NOTHING for the future of society.
It is still a mother and a father.
The fact the homosexual woman intentionally and contumaciously denies the child a father is an afirmative decision to distort and destroy the child's up bringing.
(this says nothing of the irresponsibility of the natural father)
Yeah, that explains the 50% divorce rate.
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.