Posted on 08/24/2004 1:43:08 PM PDT by ambrose
You arguments are all spurious concerning the supposed "legality" of lesbianism...the law is the law and your humorous attempts at raising legal technicalities remind me of Clinton's famous answer, "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is..."
Jerry said:
"But what about individual liberties and how far does the state intrude into a person's personal life."
I said:
What 'right' does someone have to spread a deadly disease?
That put my statement into context for you?
Most commonly, coughing or sneezing.
I hope you don't have oral sex with your wife/significant other, as that is also sodomy.
Oh, and here you come to thrown "facts and truth" on the fire!
I assume you are refering to HIV?AIDS here. Well the moajority of HIV?AIDS cases are spread through heterosexual intercourse. Granted out of wedlock and without protection, the point is this is not just a homosexual disease.
You must have been getting stoned during this part of government class: a ruling by SCOTUS is not a "technicality." If SCOTUS rules that activity X is protected by the Constitution, then a NC or VA or NY law that bans activity X is null and void.
Was that so hard?
And for some strange reason I'm reminded of that allergy med commercial where the guy calls upon teh alchemist about coughing terribly..
And the alchemist tells him to inhale a live goat.
But, getting back on track and all humor aside: read post 122 for the context of my question.
Number one, I don't hear them denouncing the sin of their daughter. Number two, it should not be brought up in the political arena if it is a private family issue. As far a walking in someone's shoes...I do not have to commit the sin to know it is wrong. I have not had sex with a woman not my wife but I happen to know it is wrong.
Dick Cheney chose to bring this issue into the spotlight. I wish public people would keep their sexual desires to themselves. I don't care if Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian unless Dick Cheney wants me to accept it as normal. Nobody faults him for loving his lesbian daughter. Hopefully he loves her enough to have discussed the sin of homosexuality with her.
That the daughter he loves is guilty of committing a sin does not make it OK to change public policy to hide that sin or define it away for his daughter or for anyone else.
God's rules apply to Dick Cheney and his family as they do to the rest of us.
I know -- who needs facts and truth when one has S-O-C-I-E-T-Y?
Well, jerry said at first that he could tolerate gays..
Which implied acceptance of their behavior.
Which leads down the slippery slope to accepting and tolerating all kinds of things that we need not get into.
Then he brought up individual rights as if that trumps all.
Which got me thinking, 'what right does that skeevy dishonest doctor have to infect patients? What right does that lying cheating scumbag boyfriend have to go around infecting people?' etc etc..
I said: What 'right' does someone have to spread a deadly disease?
That put my statement into context for you?
It wasn't a statement it was a question and a fair one at that. As has been pointed out to you homosexuality isn't causal to AIDs any more than hunting guns are causal to school shootings. Your point is stupid. (I know, I know "I wasn't asking you I was asking Jerry.")
Post 133.
Who died and left you in charge of credentialing of "conservatives"? Tolerance is definitely a conservative trait as opposed to liberals who claim all minorities must act a certain way, etc, etc.
Although I don't think to highly of homosexuality, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home, THEIR CASTLE, is of no consequence to me. It's when they force their lifestyle onto me in the streets, it becomes my business/concern.
Not in the US. Anal intercourse among male homosexuals leads, with illicit injection drug use next, and then heterosexual sex.
In Africa heterosexual sex is the primary route for HIV to spread.
I don't think gays should marry. I also don't hate them. Are you sin-free? If you meet someone who has cheated on their wife, do you want them to be stoned? If you meet a man that smokes, do you hate him too? I don't approve at all of a gay lifestyle. However, I also disapprove of smoking marijuana, voting Democrat, getting sh&tfaced every night...etc etc. Doesn't mean I think all these people deserve to be treated as second-class citizens.
Why is it so hard to understand? I don't hate gays, but don't think they should marry. We aren't going to necessarily celebrate their lifestyle but we aren't gonna condemn them either, that's God's job.
I see. So there is actually some more context that you want to bring in now. You are assuming what he's thinking and intead of asking directly you are trying to draw him into a corner. Fine, nothing wrong with that tactic. You just used a really flawed point to try it with. It'll never work and you're going to continue to draw lateral fire for it. Even if I let it go. Which I'd love to do.
None of this is relevant to the point of the thread which would be queer activism and a Constitutional Marriage amendment.
Has anyone listened to radio
newbreaks? I have, where I get
Hannity, & the guy said "Cheney
made it clear he disagrees with
his boss about amending the Const.
to define marriage as btw a man &
woman". Went on to quote Cheney
saying he believes in freedom to
enter chosen relationships, & he
thinks states should decide what
relationships will get official
gov. recognition.
At no time did I hear Cheney use
the President's wording to back
Bush's proposal to define marriage
as btw a man & woman.
?????
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.