| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/13/2004 10:03:56 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Troll magnet, posted by troll. |
Posted on 07/12/2004 12:45:33 PM PDT by RavenMoon
WASHINGTON - Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, said yesterday that states should have the final say over the legal status of personal relationships. The Cheneys have a lesbian daughter.
That stand puts her at odds with the vice president on the need for the constitutional amendment now debated in the Senate that effectively would ban gay marriage.
"I think that the constitutional amendment discussion will give us an opportunity to look for ways to discuss ways in which we can keep the authority of the states intact," Cheney told CNN's Late Edition.
The Senate began debate Friday on an amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
The heck with fascist mind control. That's just plain sick!
I heard on the radio "homophobia" is on the rise around the world. The Marxist propaganda is wearing off.
The "filth" you mention was written by felllow homosexuals. I didn't write it.
The fact is that roughly one third of child molestations are same sex. That is not my invention. It is factual. It is also factual that historically, and currently, homosexuals IN GENERAL have a proclivity towards pederasty - meaning men attracted to younger boys, either pre or post adolescent, for sexual pleasure. So why are my statements of fact "filth" or vitriol?
Where is the word "Nazi" in any of my comments?
And why are you bringing Phelps into this? He's a sick nutcase and I have nothing to do with him or his ilk, nor would I ever. I would cross the street to avoid even seeing him.
You are indulging in dishonest debating tactics. I present facts, and statements by homosexual spokespeople. You start making phony connections between me (since I disagree with the homosexual agenda) and Phelps, who is a vicious madman.
You mention a couple of friends who are devoted to each as though this anecdotal evidence in any way contradicts the factual evidence that a great number of homosexuals - especially men - are wildly promiscuous, and outdo heterosexuals in this regard.
Then you drag in the word "Nazi" gratuitously.
Are you next going to deny that there is a homosexual agenda to promote it in schools?
But now we have activist anti-American judges on the bench. Why would they be concerned about laws? They have agendas. That's how Massachusetts became Gomorrah Massachusetts, the land of the damned. The legislature makes laws, not judges - according to that old outdated Constitution, anyway.
The Full Faith and Credit clause has been specifically mentioned by advocates of same sex marriage as a way to insinuate such "marriages" throughout the country. The FF and C clause, in case you don't know about it, mandates that contracts such as marriage must be accepted by other states. So there would be (and probably has been already) lawsuits trying to force other states than MASS to recognize the same sex marriages performed elsewhere.
What is your personal viewpoint of same sex marriage? If you think it's good, or no big deal, then I can understand your comments.
I have seen it said on these boards that the same distinctions apply to marriage when it comes to the age at which one can be legally married in the different states.
Ok, gonna try to respond to this in pieces...
Jeremiah wrote: The "filth" you mention was written by felllow homosexuals. I didn't write it.
These people do not speak for me anymore than Fred Phelps speaks for you, a point you obviously didn't see I was trying to make. Let's hope it hits a home run this time around. ;-D
Jeremiah wrote: "The fact is that roughly one third of child molestations are same sex. That is not my invention. It is factual. It is also factual that historically, and currently, homosexuals IN GENERAL have a proclivity towards pederasty - meaning men attracted to younger boys, either pre or post adolescent, for sexual pleasure. So why are my statements of fact "filth" or vitriol?"
None of the "homosexuals" I know are into children, at least that I know of, and the "facts" you're touting are the same drivel that's repeated from one anti-gay site to another. That doesn't make it fact. In fact, I've always read that the vast majority of "pederasty" is committed by adult men upon young girls. Not having personal experience in either, I'm not going to try to prove one or the other but, again, those people do not speak for ME. If you want them to represent ME, than I think it's perfectly fair for Fred Phelps to represent YOU. I see no difference in this type of debate tactic and frankly, given the intelligence exhibited by your language, it's weak and you can do better.
Jeremiah wrote: "Where is the word "Nazi" in any of my comments?"
Feigned coyness is almost as weak a tactic as comparing people to Nazis. Come off it. LOL. If you really want me to take only this thread into consideration, then no, that word is not in your comments, but how many times have I read your posts about the Pink Swastika material? Apparently, much of that has been refuted in an annotated copy online. I plan to read it when I have a chance, but again, the Nazis don't speak for ME anymore than these OTHER people you cite as my representatives. If you want to know what *I* think about my personal homosexual experience, here I am. Ask away. If, on the other hand, you want to put me in some box that makes me easy for you to categorize, then expect the same in kind.
Jeremiah wrote: "And why are you bringing Phelps into this? He's a sick nutcase and I have nothing to do with him or his ilk, nor would I ever. I would cross the street to avoid even seeing him. "
Thank you for making my point for me. I feel exactly the same way about Gay Nazis and NAMBLA people that you seem to think speak for me.
Jeremiah wrote: "You are indulging in dishonest debating tactics. I present facts, and statements by homosexual spokespeople. You start making phony connections between me (since I disagree with the homosexual agenda) and Phelps, who is a vicious madman."
And how is this not contradictory? Who gave you the supreme right to decide who is a spokesperson and who is a vicious madman? Personally, I'd throw Fred Phelps in same sinking ship with the Gay Nazis and NAMBLA people. None of them are my spokespeople. In fact, with the amount of national media exposure I seem to get these days, NOBODY is my spokesperson except ME. If I have something I want to express to large numbers of people, I have no problem getting it heard. No need to allow anyone else to do it for me.
Jeremiah wrote: "You mention a couple of friends who are devoted to each as though this anecdotal evidence in any way contradicts the factual evidence that a great number of homosexuals - especially men - are wildly promiscuous, and outdo heterosexuals in this regard."
Yes, but why on earth would anyone who preferred being promiscuous want to get married? That just doesn't even make any sense. I suppose there are promiscuous married couples, gay and straight, who "swing," or whatever the term is these days, but the gay couples I know are rather committed to one another and I've always been personally turned off by promiscuity, so, again, you're lumping me into a box with people whose views I don't share, and yet you complain when I do the same [Phelps] to you. Interesting.
Jeremiah wrote: "Then you drag in the word "Nazi" gratuitously."
Do I? If I had a nickel for everytime you've used one of these threads to link homosexuals with Nazis, I'd be on a sailboat in the Caribbean and wouldn't have time to respond to you right now. ;-D
Jeremiah wrote: "Are you next going to deny that there is a homosexual agenda to promote it in schools?"
And *that's* not a slanted, loaded question? Promote exactly *what* in schools? I don't think anything should be "promoted" as being superior, thank you, but I don't think that the child of a homosexual couple should feel ashamed to go to school and say "I have two mommies" or whatever the hell the term is these days. I don't think a homosexual 15 year old should have to hide who he or she is out of shame. You color your question with slanted language to make it sound different than it is. Do I think we should be telling people that they should go out of their way to be gay? Heavens no. God knows most of the lemmings aren't strong enough in their own persons not to be hurt by statements by people like you and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. However, the fact remains, those feelings are ingrained and they should be respected. Is it genetic? I have no idea. I'm not a geneticist and neither is anyone else on this list I imagine. I theorize that it's developmental, and I despise homosexual activists when they try to fight research into the subject because they're afraid of finding out a truth they won't like. However, my guess is that it happens in the womb. THat, of course, is neither here nor there. When I first realized my [involuntary] attractions, I could choose to do one of two things. I could listen to what people like you think or I could do it my way. I'm sure you can guess the path I took. If people choose to presume what my moral and ethical compasses are, that's their choice but I refuse to acknowledge it anymore than I absolutely have to.
concerned about politics wrote: "Did you know homosexuals were considered mentally insane until the '80's? They were considered a danger to normal society. They were let out to save money, because they weren't considered dangerous, but that was before they killed all those people with AIDs.
They should be put back in. Look at the lawlessness and diseases they've created. Our ancestors were right. They are a danger to society."
Well, thankfully nobody's put you in charge. :)
concerned about politics: "The heck with fascist mind control. That's just plain sick!"
Ok, I'm gonna bite. What does their reception have to do with Facism or Mind Control? Nobody's making anyone go. Well, ok, they did pick a really nice restaurant so the might be accused of seducing folks with tasty nibbles but I guess that's about the extent of their manipulative reach. LOL
Last time I knew, there were three already started.
Suggested bumper sticker:
Overturn Marbury v. Madison NOW
Forcing homosexual "tolerance" (arg) on the American people through fascist litigation. Not one homosexual "right" went before the people. Each so called "fetish right" was dictated by a demon in a robe.
The American people strongly object to strange sexual dysfunctions being forced on them and their children. That's why the amendment is an excellent idea. Judicial impeachments for abuse of power would also be nice.
That's nonsense. If Montana doesn't issue (for example) drivers licenses to anyone under 25, then no one under 25 drives, and that includes anyone under 25 from another state who moves there with a valid license from the other state. The license from the other state is useless in Montana. A license for any imagined activity, illegal in Montana, legal elsewhere, isn't going to hold any weight in Montana. The full faith and credit clause was never intended to force a state to permit illegal behavior just because that behavior is legal in some other state.
This whole idea of preemptively amending the Constitution is hysterical madness. The federal courts are going to decide this matter before this stupid amendment ever gets passed anyway. Sheez, the things people worry about.
Your driver's license analogy is flawed. First, a driver's license is different from a marriage license. A driver's license can be suspended or cancelled by the state at any time. A state can not cancel or suspend a marriage. Driving is considered a privelige, not a right. Marriage is considered a right.
A better analogy would be the age when people are allowed to marry.
It varies from state to state. For arguments sake, let's say it is 15 in Mass., and 17 in Montana. So, two people (male and female) get married at 15 in Mass. Parent's consent. Perfectly legal in Mass. She immediatly gets pregnant. They have a child. Then they move to Montana. Neither has turned 16 yet. They are both still only 15.
Can the state of Montana dissolve their marriage because they aren't of legal age (17) to marry in Montana? Can the state of Montana refuse to recognize their marriage?
Most judges (imho) would say no they can't. The constitution already has extra language in it protecting marriage (spouses can't be forced to testify against each other.) It is clear that marriage falls into a special category.
Given the activist nature of so many judges, I don't think it will be that hard to find one that is willing to extend the protections provided traditional marriages by the consistution's full faith and credit clause to a gay marriage that was legally established in another state.
It only takes one judge in each state to get the job done.
I feel so sorry for her.
A mother would love her daughter, even if she is mentally ill. I'm sure she'd get her psychological help if the girl wasn't so engulfed in her own demented little world of self gratification.
I feel so sorry for what that family has had to live through. It's not easy having a mentally disabled child, especially when the mental disorder is sexually dysfunctional one.
Who and what gives you the right to speak for the Cheneys?
Who's speaking on behalf of the Cheneys?
I'm utilizing my first amendment. I feel sorry for people like the Cheneys who have a mentally disabled child. She's a fetish patient - a homosexual abomination. I can't imagine something like that coming from my own womb. It's a horrifying thought.
What's your point?
======
Article IV
Section I
Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
======
Therefore, a competently written Federal Defense of Marriage Act is all that is Constitutionally required to bar the spread of homosexual faux-''marriage'' from Mooseapoopetts to other states. Such an Act would simply have to provide that the ''effect'' of allowing this bizarre ''marriage'' in any State is limited to that single State. Upon such limitation at law, every other State would indeed be obeying the Constitution regarding ''full faith and credit'' by merely ignoring such ''marriages'', for their ''credit'' (which in context means ''legitimacy'') would be defined as nil outside the issuing state, by law -- much in the same manner as, I might note, the assorted concealed-carry laws are right now, and WITHOUT benefit of a Federal statute for justification.
On a different branch of this topic -- Regarding whether or not this subject is a matter of states' rights, as per the 10th Amendment, at the moment it is such. However, the 10th uses the formula ''Powers not granted to the United States by the Constitution...''. Clearly, from the text, if the several States so desire, whether subsequent to a Congressional Act or a Constitutional Convention, to ratify an Amendment and thereby do in fact grant this power (of regulation of marriage) to the United States, then no longer would ''states' rights'' be relevant to the discussion.
Sadly, because Federal courts have for many decades ignored the plain text of the Constitution, I consider it highly doubtful that these completely straightforward and contextually accurate arguments will prevail at law.
Homosexual agenda in schools - Fistgate.
You are promoting the homosexual agenda on FR, and I am going to hit the abuse button now. Let's see what the moderators think about it. You do know what JimRob thinks of the homosexual agenda, don't you?
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.