Posted on 11/01/2001 9:00:19 AM PST by FormerLib
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:35:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
And your challenge has no validity.
Or are you just stating your own blind ignorant views.
By the way, I used the noun ,hermaphodite, because it is the noun with the closest meaning to discribe a child born with sexual characteristics of both male and female genitalia.
Doesn't change the meaning of the word "marriage," any more than it changes the meaning of the words "bird," "frog," or "chimpanzee."
The Constitution is also silent on the issue of group marriage and interspecies marriage. Should we also accept that as tacit approval?
That's why the marriage amendment will be so helpful as it will define marriage correctly. Pity that we need to do this against the perverted homosexual agenda, but we will do whatever we can to stop them.
"That's why the marriage amendment will be so helpful as it will define marriage correctly. Pity that we need to do this against the perverted homosexual agenda, but we will do whatever we can to stop them."
I oppose the Marriage Ammendment for this reason:
It isn't necessary. There's nothing wrong with marriage or it's definition. The problem is a rogue Judiciary, who thinks that they are empowered to rewrite the Constitution AND the dictionary.
The secondary problem is a complicit Legislative branch which has abdicated their responsibility to impeach judges who violate their oath of office, failing to "honor and uphold" the Constitution.
If we go for the Marriage Ammendment trap, we're admitting (again) that the Constitution, as written, is meaningless. We're accepting that judges have it in their power to act like autocrats, and we're accepting that it is our only option to deal with these things on a case by case basis.
What good is an Ammendment to a meaningless Constitution?
It's actually much easier to impeach a federal judge than it is to Ammend the Constitution. Impeachment requires a simple majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate. Ammendments require 2/3 of heach house, plus 3/4 of the legislatures in all 50 States. Make that both legislatures in bicameral States.
You've actually answered your own question. It will pen in the otherwise activist Judiciary.
It's actually much easier to impeach a federal judge than it is to Ammend the Constitution. Impeachment requires a simple majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate. Ammendments require 2/3 of heach house, plus 3/4 of the legislatures in all 50 States. Make that both legislatures in bicameral States.
Tell you what, you go to work on getting them impeached and I'll continue to work on the Amendment. When the Amendment comes around, I won't support it if you're achieved the goal. Otherwise, you support the Amendment. Deal?
Enough to know your transsex agenda and that it doesnt have anything to do with intersexuality. Nice denial though, I especially like the one about, The standard is surgery to give them female genitalia, Pure blind ignorant crap!
If the Constitution as it stands doesn't pen in the Judiciary, how can an Ammendment?
Because they thrive on ambiguous or missing language. That's how they can read the Consititution and discover a right to an abortion hidden inside a right to privacy. Put in an Amendment that guarantees the right to life for the unborn, and they can't make their silly argument anymore.
Define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and they won't be able to discover a right for fudge-packers to marry hidden elsewhere either.
Wrong again, genitalia characteristics are either male, female or ambiguous. A hermaphrodite means having functioning reproductive organs in plants and microorganisms and has nothing to do with humans. Youre generalizing a great multitude of syndromes into one neat little package to promote your transsexual agenda.
In my original reply, I was trying to point out to you that you were wrong that Western Civilization had no historical homosexual effluences.
The Ancient Roman Civilization, which Western Civilization was partially based on, was pro-homosexual.
I was NOT trying to stated that the Ancient Roman Civilization had homosexual marriages.
You're wrong, Clint. "Hermaphrodite" has been used in medical terminology for over 100 years to describe a wide array of human conditions. The following is just one of 1000's of such articles found in medical journals:
P&S Medical Review: August 1996, Vol.3, No.2The term is going out of style in favor of "intersexed," but it's still commonly used. Some hermaphrodites find it offensive, others don't give a toot. You can find the rest of the article at Hermaphrodite
True Hermaphroditism: Considerations in the Management of Patients Presenting in Early and Adult LifeAbstract
A twenty-seven year old man with penoscrotal hypospadias and unilateral undescended gonad was diagnosed with lateral true hermaphroditism during an evaluation for infertility. Phenotype male true hermaphrodites seldom present in adult life, and rarely for infertility. This case illustrates how diagnosis and treatment may be delayed until a significant personal event, such as infertility, prompts medical evaluation.
You're also dead wrong about nearly everything else you been pontificating on. Attending physicians have been "assigning" sex to babies based on penis size and shape since the first part of the 20th century. Boys with penises less than 1 inch were routinely whacked and raised as girls. Parents were counseled that it was best for the child. A mind-boggling array of genital malformities in boys received similar attention. (Current wisdom is slowly turning away from these practices. It's about time.) Furthermore, there is no such thing as the "gender one is born with" you tout in post #100. I hate to pop your bubble, but intersexuality is a real live human condition and some people just don't fit neatly into your little black & white, male & female world-view.
Hehehe
Is that the best you got, no denial, no challenge of fact? If you cant defend your own statements why publish them in the first place, were you hoping no one would notice you dont know what youre talking about? You insult yourself.
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.