[mikeb704]

First, an honest debate on the criminalization of gay sex in Texas somehow gave rise to baseless fears about permitting bestiality and incest.

Justice Scalia doesn't consider these fears baseless.

Michael M. Bates: My Side of the Swamp

[templar]

For several weeks now a storm has been brewing in the Senate over just how homosexuals fit into the mainstream of American life.

They don't.

Homo's are on the fringe, nothing the senate, the courts, the fallen churches, or anything else does will ever change that.

[RLK]

As our country has gained honest and steady knowledge about homosexuality, we have learned that it is not a mental illness or a disease or a threat to our families.

-------------------

Sorry pal, I strongly disagree with you. On the whole, I am convinced it is a serious mental disorder containing an element of evolving thought disorder which is being sold to the American public and which you have bought into.

[BobS]

Let's just use the term "butthole surfer" in polite company from now on and see what happens:)

[weegee]

As someone who is basically a conservative, I see not an argument about banning marriage or "defending" families but rather a power grab. Conservatives argue vehemently about federal usurpation of other issues best left to the states, such as abortion or gun control. Why would they elevate this one to the federal level?

The federal government should be protecting everyone's right to bear arms (2nd Ammendment of the Constitution).

Aborting children is as much a violation of civil rights as slavery and lynching is.

Marriages are licensed. Do away with marriage license and then there should be no fear of a federal "power grab", it would merely be a private set of secular or religous vows to another person holding no legal weight or governmental oversight.

Are we still talking "states' rights"?

[weegee]

He quotes Dick Chaney yet I don't think he makes a compelling case for his point:

"The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. . . . And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard. . . . I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area."

Dick sees clearly the other reason why federalizing marriage is troublesome.

So same-sex-marriage is an issue for each state to decide but the right to commit acts of homosexual stimulation are federally protected. Same sex interaction is protected but adult incest is not. Consenting acts of prostitution are not. Polygomous marriage was barred nationally (wasn't this a condition of Utah entering the Union?).

Need I add that it is illegal to grow pot in your bedroom closet and smoke it only at home?

Privacy provisions of the constitution would appear not to protect a citizen against government interference in a number of "private" acts. The activist supreme court set bad precedent by okaying this one act in private but arguing that it did not necessarily permit a bunch of other acts (sexual or non).

[vpintheak]

The author needs to check his facts before saying that amendments have all been made to ensure liberty. The 16th Amendment sure doesn't ensure liberty, instead it restricts it. That is just one example. (Income Taxes)

[punster]

There is considerable evidence that homosexuality and gender identity problem (no, they are not identical) have biological causes, which are most probably related to the hormonal environment in the womb.

A good example would be intersexual conditions.

1. Androgen insensitivity syndrome. XY (genetic male) individual, female phenotype, vagina, but no uterus. Female gender identity and female sexuality.

2. Adrenogenital syndrome. XX (genetic female) individual. Varying degrees of masculinization of the genitals. Varying degrees of masculinization of behavior. Some studies have suggested they have a much greater chance of being lesbian.

3. Gonadal agenesis (failure to develop gonads). Genotype may be either XX (female) or XY (male). The phenotype is invariably female, with vagina and uterus. There is one case (XY genotype) reported (in India), where the individual was artificially implanted with a fertilized ova and she carried the baby to term.

Current medical research suggests that it is the presence of testosterone (male sex hormone) that causes the infant to develop male genital structure. Furthermore, that same testosterone is responsible for masculinizing the brain, including developing the male sex drive. Anti-Muellerian hormone is responsible for suppressing the internal female organ development.

Female is the default developmental pattern. No testosterone, the infant will develop as a female and have a female gender identity. Greatly reduced testosterone levels may have a similar effect. Some researchers believe the timing for the hormonal environment is also critical, if the fetal testes shut down too soon, the fetus may not have it's brain structure masculinized.

It is a really difficult question to answer.

[lambo]

Former Senator Simpson is the one missing the point here. This is not simply a matter of being a good federalist and allowing "laws affecting family life [to fall] under the jurisdiction of the states, not the federal government".

The constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause will require gay marriages entered into legally in one state to be recognized with the full force of law in all the other states. Homosexuals will travel to, say, Massachusetts, get married, go back to, say, Alabama, and, under the constitution, have a marriage that must be legally recognized in the latter state. That is what the Defense of Marriage Act and the proposed constitutional amendment are intended to prevent.

I'm as much of a federalist as the next Freeper, but leaving this matter to the states would be nothing more than a sneaky, back-door way of imposing the values of Massachusetts on the rest of us.

[thegreatbeast]

What has happened to this old man? Is it Gerry Ford syndrome, dementia praecox or his simply sucking at the liberal teat for too long?
He claims that he wouldn't argue for gay marriage but that is exactly what he does.
He best go back to the Kennedy School and live out his days as a curiosity on the Harvard campus.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Did you put all those keywords under that thread? Sheesh..

[Pietro]

Essentially there are three reasons why homo marriages are a very bad idea and any move at any/every level of government that prevents it is a good move. My three reasons:

1) Overturning 2,000 year old traditions that are the foundation stones of all civilized society would be a societal disaster. Traditions evolve for a reason and the father/mother, man/women partnership is THE fundemental building block of society. We should be doing everything practical to strengthen traditional marriage and certainly nothing to weaken it.

2) Homos are more promiscuous than rabbits/minks. The most promiscuous hetero comes no where near the number of partners in any given time period that the average homo does. Even so-called "committed" couples very often invite over-night guests into their relationship. Marriage under these circumstances devolves merely into a convenient method for attaining societal freebies like health insurance, paid leave, and other benies that society typically provides to man & wife.

3) Anal intercourse is the most unhealthy practice on the planet. Its more dangerous than smoking, drinking, or drug addiction. Even if one discounts AIDS, the transfer of STDs (see 2 above) in the homo community dwarfs anything in the hetero community. And its not merely STDs, as if that weren't enough, but colon cancer and diseases carried in fecal matter are rampant in the homo community. How can any practice that is so inherently unhealthy be considered normal?

For these reasons homo activity can never be placed upon the same plain as traditional man/woman relationships. That we are even having to point out this obvious truth reflects the level of damage that moral relativism has had on our sex-saturated society.

Here then is the reason that Holy Scripture so clearly warns against these deadly practices; we ignore them at our own peril.

[No Dems 2004]

Don't pay any attention to this Alan Simpson. I've read things that he's said elsewhere and he was just chortling with joy when the USSC ruled on Lawrence vs. Texas. He's a pro-homosexual RINO and doesn't speak with credibility.

Why doesn't he go and analyze some of the American viewpoints in the South and Midwest (not to mention the Rocky Mountain West) and see if his views are 'mainstream'. Sounds like he'd make a good compadre for Schwarzennegger.

[EdReform]

Ping.

Scripter will be off line occasionally between now and the middle of September. I've agreed to help him out by running his homosexual agenda ping list.

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links

Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

A simple freepmail is all it takes to subscribe to or unsubscribe from scripter's homosexual agenda ping list. If you wish to be added to the list in scripter's absence, please FReepmail me.

[hardhead]

Alan Simpson ALWAYS has missed the point. This is a little off-topic but he is a LAWYER, a maverick, who always voted and did what HE wanted to do, to hell with his constituents. At a town meeting here one time, a friend of mine who was a Vietnam veteran suffering from PTSD, had been trying for years to get ANY kind of help that he could from the VA and other government agencies. At the time the VA did not cater to anyone with PTSD. My friend stood up and asked Simpson why the government wouldn't help those who had served and gave part of their lives, minds and bodies to the war in Southeast Asia. Simpson, in his haughty manner, replied that maybe it was time for my friend to 'get a life' and stop trying to freeload off of the American people. After years of trying, my friend gave up and killed himself soon after that. Simpson is a bastard.

[MEGoody]

"First, an honest debate on the criminalization of gay sex in Texas somehow gave rise to baseless fears about permitting bestiality and incest."

On what basis does this author claim these 'fears' are baseless.

Back in the 60s when the 'free love' movement began, they'd have called fears of open homosexuality 'baseless,' and look what we have today.