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

Skip to comments.

Gingrich: Conservatives Will Have to Accept Marriage 'Equality'
Newsmax ^ | 12/20/2012 | Stephen Feller

Posted on 12/20/2012 3:05:19 PM PST by Kazan

Edited on 12/20/2012 7:08:12 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-323 last
To: castowell
Uh, no incorrect. The Catholic Church recognizes baptisms in other Christian faiths as long as they are Trinitarian. It does not make them a Catholic baptism. And you do become a convert to the faith if you go through the proper training (RCIA for example). If you were not baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit then you must do so along with completing your Rite of Christian Initiation. Some Christian faiths do not perform Trinitarian baptisms, so in this case you will be baptized Catholic obviously because you are “converting” to the faith

uh, no...incorrect..the Catholic church certainly recognizes all baptisms as long as they follow the proscribet words, signs, etc. However, you cannot be baptized a Methodist, nor a lutheran, nor an anything wlse but a Catholic. While the Baptism may be valid, and is recognized by the church, and that no additional baptism is required to rejoin the Catholic church, it is because you were already beptized Catholic.

Look at it this way...you are baptized a Christian....there is only one true Christian church on earth...the Catholic church. The 20,000 or so other denominations are just that...splinter groups protesting one thing or another having to do with Catholicism. That's fine, but they are all separated brethren, baptized into christianity, who have chosen not to follow Christ's true church. I agree that people can convert to Catholicism, but only those who were not were not the beneficiaries of a legitimate baptism.Those who were, are merely coming home.

301 posted on 12/21/2012 8:06:25 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

Well, it certainly took you long enough to string that sentence together Mr. Packer.


302 posted on 12/21/2012 8:11:01 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans Freed the Slaves" Month)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Well, it certainly took you long enough to string that sentence together Mr. Packer.

Not bad at all if I must say so myself...made sense, is totally true and might teach you a thing or two. Now I am from Wisconsin and being called Mr.Packer is a compliment. I'm not sure where you're from, but you would know much more about it's connotations than I would....you've been there and done that!

303 posted on 12/21/2012 8:34:47 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

The story of Shadrak, Meshak and Abednigo should be a model lesson for Christians here. You can’t support a platform that defies God’s Word and still be fireproof. That includes supporting a political party that requires one to do so. With it’s support for the murder of babies and the recognition of sexual perversion as acceptable despite the teachings of His Word, it truly makes the Democratic Liberal platform the “Anti” in Antichrist. Politics will deceive many into losing their souls.


304 posted on 12/21/2012 8:38:25 PM PST by Aleya2Fairlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

Nope, not a day in my life, and I’m no longer a Newt supporter, as he’s an obvious whore.

Is that clear enough for you?


305 posted on 12/21/2012 9:00:14 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans Freed the Slaves" Month)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1; Impy
>> Many Newt supporters in the recent primary knew that. However, given a choice of the phenomenally weak Massachusetts liberal describing himself as "severely conservative" (the only person alive who would use those words about himself; I'm "responsibly conservative", for example), or a known sleaze who could at least be trusted to act conservative most of the time, many of us were willing to settle for Newt. Palin, DeMint, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Santorum, and many others ranked above Newt, but as those candidates dropped out or failed to announce, we tried to find any possible option. <<

Santorum was still running through the vast majority of the primary states, and far ahead of Newt in delegates. The Newt supporters certainly did not "try to find any possible option" or "rank Santorum ahead of Newt", otherwise they would be have been "Santorum supporters" like myself. Most of the "ANYONE but Romney" crowd quickly morphed into "NOBODY but Newt"

306 posted on 12/21/2012 9:41:37 PM PST by BillyBoy ( Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1; Impy
>> Many Newt supporters in the recent primary knew that. However, given a choice of the phenomenally weak Massachusetts liberal describing himself as "severely conservative" (the only person alive who would use those words about himself; I'm "responsibly conservative", for example), or a known sleaze who could at least be trusted to act conservative most of the time, many of us were willing to settle for Newt. Palin, DeMint, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Santorum, and many others ranked above Newt, but as those candidates dropped out or failed to announce, we tried to find any possible option. <<

Santorum was still running through the vast majority of the primary states, and far ahead of Newt in delegates. The Newt supporters certainly did not "try to find any possible option" or "rank Santorum ahead of Newt", otherwise they would have been "Santorum supporters" like myself. Most of the "ANYONE but Romney" crowd quickly morphed into "NOBODY but Newt"

307 posted on 12/21/2012 9:42:09 PM PST by BillyBoy ( Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
Make no mistake old FRiend, my support for Santorum was lukewarm and only came after THIS and THIS. I am and was fully aware of his shortcomings and propensity to be a "Team Player."

Those links don't help you much. Sarah had Todd endorse Gingrich shortly after those two articles were published.

I doubt that you realize the dark side of Santorum's history, and the similarities that he shares with his man Mitt Romney, including being anti-Reagan, and leaving his pro-abortion position to run for office, and even supporting removing the pro-life plank from the party platform.

308 posted on 12/21/2012 9:42:29 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney--guns not for recreation or self-defense"sole purpose of hunting down and killing people".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

What is Newt talking about? Boy, has he lost it. There’s no such thing as gay marriage. He needs to check the definition of marriage. That will never change. Apparently Newtie didn’t check with his Pastor prior to bloviating.


309 posted on 12/21/2012 10:22:31 PM PST by NoRedTape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3; Timber Rattler; sickoflibs
Next year's "couch" commercial:


"We dew agwee on sumfin', don't we Newt?"


"Yes, our country must take action now to address marriage equality"


"Togewther, we can fwight hateful twaditional marriage bigots standing in way of Newt's fowrth marriage"

310 posted on 12/21/2012 10:24:03 PM PST by BillyBoy ( Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Christie at the beach

“God needs to help us.”
Don’t you mean we need God to help us? 2 Chron.7:14 points out very plainly what we need to do.


311 posted on 12/21/2012 10:27:45 PM PST by liberalism is suicide (Communism,fascism-no matter how you slice socialism, its still baloney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Christie at the beach

“God needs to help us.”
Don’t you mean we need God to help us? 2 Chron.7:14 points out very plainly what we need to do.


312 posted on 12/21/2012 10:28:05 PM PST by liberalism is suicide (Communism,fascism-no matter how you slice socialism, its still baloney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

I have no idea what you’re trying to say. If you’re going to attempt sarcasm, you need to do so a little more coherently.

What it SEEMS like you’re trying to say - that this is indeed a federal matter based on some moral consideration - is the exact same position leftists take to shove gay marriage and nationwide legalized abortion down our throats. You’re on the opposite side in terms of the end-result but on the exact same side in terms of process. “Law X is good; therefore Law X should be the law throughout the land.” Are you familiar with the 10th Amendment?

Were we better off when abortion was legal in a FEW states or when the Supreme Court basically reasoned just as you did above and made it illegal everywhere? Same thing could happen with same-sex “marriage.”

Hank


313 posted on 12/21/2012 10:46:09 PM PST by County Agent Hank Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: County Agent Hank Kimball
>> I have no idea what you’re trying to say <<

Open up a history book. Read the section of "popular sovereignty" movement of the 1850s. It was a failed political strategy that attempted exactly what you are advocating. Resulted in nasty stuff like "bleeding Kansas"

>> Are you familiar with the 10th Amendment? <<

Yes. The 10th amendment states that matters NOT already delegated to the federal government are the jurisdiction of the states, OR the people themselves. The 10th amendment does not apply in this case since the bill of rights and 14th amendment already guarantees ALL Americans the right to life. Hence, Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided. States no more have the "right" to kill unborn children than they have the "right" to ignore the 2nd amendment and ban guns. Life and liberty are NOT matters left up to state governments to be "optional" in America.

314 posted on 12/21/2012 11:49:57 PM PST by BillyBoy ( Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

I ALSO PICKED RICK!


315 posted on 12/22/2012 4:47:54 AM PST by floralamiss ("For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

gingrich is giving us Nuance bs.

married in church or law is the same. the LAW does NOT recognize a church marriage. It is the priest as notary that is recognized.

gingrich is saying this because he thinks the base is stupid.


316 posted on 12/22/2012 6:25:31 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbobfoster
That's how I feel. I say, OK go for it. Let all the gays get married and eventually we will see how successful this social experiment goes.

Kind of like how no fault easy divorce certainly helped this country and made disappear all kinds of societal problems. /end sarcasm

317 posted on 12/22/2012 7:59:29 AM PST by 3catsanadog (No more blaming Bush, Obama-now you inherited the mess you made.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aleya2Fairlie

And to think that many try to separate politics and obedience to God. So many say no one can win an election without caving morally.

Maybe that’s why President Ronald Reagan is astounding: he was a decent, law-abiding man who acknowledged God and yet actually won. I don’t believe he would have tolerated this for a moment. Good people have to stand up for right, just like those three did, in ancient Babylon.

“If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.” - Ronald Reagan

What a contrast to Newt Gingrich!


318 posted on 12/22/2012 8:10:12 AM PST by mbj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: OKRA2012

Gingrich pretends to be a Catholic. If he really were Catholic, he would listen to the Pope on gay marriage. The Pope the other day pointed out the immense danger of redefining marriage into nothingness.

Gingrich, the thrice-married CINO, says ho-hum. Some of my friends are homosexuals, he says, so let’s don’t get them upset.

I thought Gingrich was supposed to have a powerful and courageous intellect.


319 posted on 12/22/2012 8:19:52 AM PST by heye2monn (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

Note to Newt......GO AWAY AND STFU!!! I THOUGHT YOU WERE CATHOLIC!!!! Seems like it didn’t TAKE!


320 posted on 12/22/2012 9:40:03 AM PST by Ann Archy (ABORTION........the HUMAN sacrifice to the god of CONVENIENCE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

Of course Roe V. Wade was wrongly decided but it has nothing to do with the right to life because even that is regulated at the state level. With few exceptions, murder is a state matter, not a federal matter. If New Jersey were to insanely decide through its constitutional process to make murder a misdemeanor, it would be fully within its rights to do so.

Of course that would never happen and if it did you would see quite the exodus from New Jersey.

The BoR says the government can’t deprive a person of his life without due process. It DOESN’T say the government has to affirmatively protect life. That’s a significant difference.

All of which has little to do with homosexual “marriage.” States can clearly do whatever the hell they want to do in that regard. The real danger, though is that the SC - like it did in Roe V. Wade - summons up “emanations” and “pnumbras” to conjure a universal right for faggots to marry each other that states get no say over.

Hank


321 posted on 12/22/2012 10:40:41 PM PST by County Agent Hank Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Cato in PA

Thank you, it’s can be hard to admit you were wrong.

I don’t remember fighting with you in particular but I probably did, I was hard anti-Newt.


322 posted on 12/26/2012 11:16:51 PM PST by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1; BillyBoy; dforest; Cicero; stephenjohnbanker; fieldmarshaldj

Most Newts on here were inexplicably still supporting him (and bashing Santorum as a “stalking horse for Romney”) after he was no longer viable coming in 4th in most primaries. Santorum lost several key primaries thanks to Newt voters. Epic fail. Newt was done after attacking Romney from the left as an evil millionaire and getting spanked in Florida. If he hadn’t done that he may have even won. The single dumbest move of the 2012 campaign and that’s saying a lot.

Not that Santorum was great (he wasn’t, he had numerous serious flaws) but he was better than Newt and the one that was actually in second place, the only one that could have stopped Glove from getting the nomination, period. Anyone who thought otherwise failed 2nd grade math.

When I pointed this out at the time I was called a Romney plant by the Newtbots.


323 posted on 12/26/2012 11:58:19 PM PST by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-323 last

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.

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