Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Fester Chugabrew
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.

Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.

All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.

Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here?

No person can logically say that carnal practices engaged by homosexuals are consistent with human anatomical function. It is obvious, and an impervious secular argument to say that biology is a standard by which we can measure. The hormonal drive to mate is biologically heterosexual.

Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior. It is apparent some people still worship idols in this day and age. Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on a person's idolatrous fetishes? Whatever happened to the ‘separation of church and state’? Perhaps homosexual monogamy advocates could conclave to enshrine their own phantasmal state religion and consecrate Michael Jackson as its first Pope!

Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.

Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited? The Michael Jackson Complex is fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is a social psychosis catering to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.

76 posted on 06/02/2005 5:57:43 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender;"

No, it is a right. There is nowhere in the Constitution where the government is given the authority to regulate marriage. If it isn't in the Constitution, the government does NOT have the authority to do it. We are not granted privileges with the Constitution, the Government is given restrictions on its powers. The bill of rights is just an acknowledgment of a few of our rights, it is not a list of the only rights we have.

"Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right."

No, they are rights. Licenses for driving only are enforced on public roads. I can drive all I want on my own land, with no license from any government. As for legal and medical licenses, they are just an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of lawyers and doctors to practice freely. They were made to protect the established professions (like most professional licensee's) from competition. The Constitution (US or state) does not give the government the authority to regulate who can or can't practice law or medicine.

"Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior. It is apparent some people still worship idols in this day and age."


Which higher power? Yours? Mine? Bin Laden's? It's one thing for you to believe something is wrong; it's another to think you have the right to force someone else to live as you demand when their actions do not infringe on your life, liberty, or property. It's none of your business.
77 posted on 06/02/2005 6:21:03 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson