I don't find it threatening at all. Just a nuisance.
Posted on 11/12/2008 9:23:00 PM PST by TheReligiousConservative51
"Just as most older conservatives now acknowledge that they once erred in "keeping blacks in their place," they should make the same acknowledgement for gays and their right to marry, and live happy, open and contented lives in each other's arms."
"Fear that others may reject these apparently arbitrary moral boundaries, and hence question those who decreed them, and cause society to fall apart, is the reason for the conservatives' deep paranoia about the mythical "gay recruiting" and the equally mythical "gay agenda.""
(Excerpt) Read more at bidstrup.com ...
Apparently that makes the majority of Californians “conservative.”
Did you mean to say “So Deeply Disgusting”?
...why don’t you go ask the BLACK OBAMA SUPPORTERS why they voted “yes” on prop 8?
Why does the libs find gay behavoir so cheerishable???
I am sicked and tired of these mentally illed libs. If I were the president I would throw all of them out and make them live in Iran.
Sodom and Gomorrah
Are conservatives next supposed to admit they erred when they thought thieves should go to jail.
There is not a civilization yet that has survived rampant homosexuality. Homosex is not the cause, but it is a symptom of a decadent society that values self-indulgence over self-sacrifice, pride over humility.
Should read...Why Do Gays Find Conservative Marriage so Deeply Threatening?
Gays can live "in each others' arms" to their hearts content. They can join together and call it whatever they want and then work to pass laws that recognize their "unions" to be on par with marriage. Gays only want to use the word "marriage" in order to DESTROY the institution of marriage.
No doubt about it; the definitive act of male homosexuality involves someone getting poo-poo on his pee-pee.
Why do the homos need “marriage” so much?
Have they learned nothing from straight people? These days over half of marriages end in divorce, I’m sad to say. I’d wager with gay people that number could approach 80%.
If they really knew what was good for them, they would covet each other’s asses without the burden of lawyers and alimony.
One word: ADOPTION
And to add to that point, most gays are not in it for life. A very few are, most don't want to be tied down to any set of absolute morals, so the point of this gay marriage thing is mostly to make a mockery of real marriage. It's an insult.
We already know from Massachusetts what happens. You want to rent out your church for weddings. Two gays stop by and want to be married in your church. You say no. They sue and win you either marry them or quit renting your church out. Next step two gays ask Mormon Bishop to marry them. He refuses. They sue and win. From then on no Mormon Bishop or pastor will have a license to marry. All weddings from then on will be in some judges office or by some Epicopalian and from there to the Temple. It goes on from there to speaking from scripture from the pulpit. Gays take offense, pass laws saying that is hate speech. Church loses tax exemption....Of course, you must have a liberal judiary which BO will be happy to provide. Civilization disintegrates. Canada is already there with the hate speech stuff from churches.
The denial that there even IS a “gay agenda” makes this whole puff piece unworthy of the time it would take to read it or to respond further than this.
They have goals they would like to accomplish. And they’d rather accomplish them in the courts than by building any consensus in this country. That is why there is the hissy fit about losing the argument “to conservative politics” at a time when liberals took the election by storm. It isn’t “just” conservatives who disagreed with the homosexual proponents. That is, unless the author is willing to concede that the whole nation (including all ares of California) is more socially conservative than Hollywood tries to portray it.
I do believe if we stand strong, and on the offensive, we can stave off the above scenario.
Shouldn't there be human-plant marriages, too?
“Why Do Liberals Need to Discuss Their Sex Lives In Public?”
“Did you mean to say “So Deeply Disgusting”?”
I was thinking “Repulsive.”
“So, having established the value of gay marriage, why are people so opposed to it?”
Because if you don’t say you are in favor of it, you are harrassed, your churches are attacked and vandalized, you get assaulted, you get called a bigot and violator of civil rights, and you are forced from your job (the theater director in Sacramento being the first example).
You will get to hear your pastor say: “Do you, Party A, take Party B . . . “
Stopped reading right there, the lying moron accuses us of doing what the left was always guilty of.
I don't find it threatening at all. Just a nuisance.
Why do people think that Homosexuality is a Civil Rights issue? It has pretty successfully hung its hat in the Black American Struggle, but it really doesn’t belong there.
Why is it that people with Anger Management Problems, Alcoholism, Drug Addition, or any other set of vices,(yes, I said vices) should not have special laws made for them because of their vices.
I mean special laws because Self Designated Homosexuals, as all homosexuals are, are entitled to marriage just like any other citizen. They are just not entitled to special, historically unlawful marriages. Just like Alcoholics are not entitled to rob little old ladies of their purses to get money for their next bottle. etc. You see, alcoholism is a problem that some people are ‘born with’ also.
Actually there is some discomfort with some gays who want the freedom to be bi, and don’t want to be considered “born” any certain way, but that would undermine the Civil Rights Angle, wouldn’t it.
Because their sex life is the only thing they have to talk about. It's a direct outcome of their not actually doing anything else. It is very sad, really.
'nuff said!
I’m amazed how many people are willing to eat in a restaurant with a gay chef, who serves marvelous sauces. If they would consider the homosexual act has a preoccupation with feces or ignorance thereof, and the same pervert chef now is attracted to serve them a beef crepe, would they be as willing to attend a dinner party hosted by Dr. Hannibal Lector?
Well, I liked the one where he “refutes” the view that marriage is the union between a man and a woman by asking the question, “Who says?”
Shoot. He’s got us! Let’s keep pulling the thread. WHO says rape is wrong? It’s got a hell of a lot more evolutionary benefit than gay marriage, so from the perspective of godlessness it’s a LOT more “moral” than gay marriage! WHO says murder is wrong? Don’t animals kill each other? Why shouldn’t I be able to blow my next door neighbor away for playing that crap he calls ‘music’ so loud?
WHO says marriage is between a man and a woman? Ask the question another way: when has anyone in history up to this point said that marriage was ever between a man and a man? What is the history of “gay marriage”? I came across some pro-gay articles that said “the tradition of gay marriage has been with us since the Roman Empire.” So I started looking and found a SINGLE account in Nero’s day by Seutonius.
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2008/10/same-sex-marriage-and-roman-empire.html It isn’t exactly flattering, is it? Basically this emperor was so evil, so insane, so homicidal, and so completely depraved, that he even stooped to this kind of garbage. If this is the model for gay marriage and society, let’s put it out there: gay marriage leads to the total disaster of civilization, as evidenced by it’s first practice during the time of Nero. Nero was also a flagrant pedophile, according to Seutonius, so the least we can do is legalize the molesting of all our young boys, as well.
Restricting the definition of marriage is not “inappropriate” discrimination. As a matter of fact, the word DISCRIMINATION doesn’t even apply because there is no such thing legally, culturally, socially or linguistically as a marriage that is not between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is an invention by people of the moral caliber of Nero.
You want gay marriage? Fine. I want to kill and eat people. WHO SAYS I shouldn’t be allowed to kill and eat people? It’s certainly got more historical precedent than gay marriage, and the evidence suggests it’s less destructive for society, too.
I'll second that!
Why do gays find traditional religious and social views so deeply threatening?
hey, when the filthy disease ridden queer get another disease worse than AIDS, I DON’T CARE!
“Why Do Liberals Need to Discuss Their Sex Lives In Public?”
queers feel they need to not only discuss it but do it in public....public toilets, parks, beaches,...anywhere!
The pat answer used by some homosexual proponents is that "it occurs in nature", so do rape, incest, cannibalism, and interspecies sex.
But the dirty little secret is that the sex positive agenda doesn't care about science or civilization, it seeks to end ALL moral judgements over all sexual pairings. Saying that it is "genetic" or "natural" are just to get people on board to accept it. In the end, they don't think it is any of your prudish business to comment on where they put their willies.
If you want to kill and eat people (I know you are being facitious here), then you should publicly appeal to abortionists for the “waste product”. After all, there are couples who eat the placenta (even vegans will eat it since it does not victimize animals). If it is “not” a baby, then there should be no shock or horror among the abortionists you ask.
The Sex Positive agenda as pushed by Reich, Kinsey, feminists, and socialists doesn't draw such distinctions, they want the freedom to make it with anyone "just because" with no moral restraint. They don't care how you are "born", they believe that you should "experiment" to discover the whole pornicopia of sexual experiences.
The AIDS epidemic made me rethink everything from eating out to getting in any public pools. I know AIDS is not transmitted through food handling or sitting in a hot tub but it did make me think about what a filthy act defines male homosexuality and make me want to stay out of situations where I would be exposed to the ecoli and other nasty germs that are more present in gay world.
Tree huggers should be careful. They might get splinters in delicate places.
Isn’t it interesting to see how voting is not a protected right, after all, the theater director was forced out for backing ads for a proposition that was on the ballot. We can assume he also voted for that measure.
But political beliefs are not protected from discrimination as religious beliefs, sexual beliefs, sex, and skin color are.
We've already lost some excellent words in the past, including "liberal" (political liberals of today are anything but liberal) so I would hate to lose the word "marriage" too. It's worth fighting for.
“Actually there is some discomfort with some gays who want the freedom to be bi, and don’t want to be considered “born” any certain way, but that would undermine the Civil Rights Angle, wouldn’t it.
The Sex Positive agenda as pushed by Reich, Kinsey, feminists, and socialists doesn’t draw such distinctions, they want the freedom to make it with anyone “just because” with no moral restraint. They don’t care how you are “born”, they believe that you should “experiment” to discover the whole pornicopia of sexual experiences.”
Thanks for giving me a name for that movement. “Sex Positive” agenda.
pornicopia = LOL!
Great link. Thanks.
Results 1 - 10 of about 274,000 for “Sex Positive”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Sex+Positive%E2%80%9D&aq=f&oq=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive
The sex-positive movement is a loosely defined term that applies to a wide variety of elements that embrace social and philosophical attitudes promoting open sexuality with few limits.
OK, lets brain storm some better words. I’ve been thinking about your comment for a while about the need for better words.
Gay marriage rights could =
Special Marriage rights
Peculiar marriage rights
queer marriage rights:)
since they are asking for special, above and beyond normal. However the words marriage and rights are still in these phrases.
Non life giving marriage
unproductive marriage
barren marriage.
sterile marriage.
non breeding marriage
non prolific marriage
These rename Traditional Marriage.
True Marriage
Historically lawful marriage.
Help me people!!!!! Freepers are incredibly cleaver when it comes to words!
How about
Gay espousal
double meaning( spouse and to say something)
Gay alliance
Because they abuse themselves and others!
shouldn’t this be with the blogs?
BTW welcome to FreeRepublic.com
I don't want to even give them the word gay. That word was purloined several decades ago but let's be honest -- the original meaning of that word is never coming back. I can live with that. But I'll fight the gay lobby to the bitter end over the word "marriage."
Here's the phrase I always use: "Roommate Union." If two men or two women who share the same domicile wish to receive civil benefits comparable to a married couple, then I suggest they perform the paperwork and make it so. But it's not marriage: It's a civil "Roommate Union."
What say you?
No one is trying to deny these people their rights. It is more of a matter of stopping gays from stepping on the rights of religious institutions that do not support the gay life style.
It is wrong to force churches to accept something that they religiously believe is wrong.
I do support them to have “legal” marriages with the same rights as religiously married couples under mans law, but as for the definition of marriage as given by churches. Gays do not have the right to tell religious groups what they should believe or how they should conduct their beliefs.
Equal rights folks, not more rights than everyone else.
Roommate union and civil union are similar and something that most people are OK with.
Roommate Union or Civil Union instead of Gay Marriage.
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.