Posted on 07/21/2013 6:15:27 PM PDT by markomalley
No, marriage is the survival of the species.
I wouldn’t choose those adjectives to describe my marriage ... but then, I own an Unabridged Dictionary.
What’s bigoted is that I need to get a license by the friggin’ state to get married.
God’s word: “Male and female he made them.”
Obama and the Supreme Court are as sick as the queers they love.
We just don't think homosexuals and other deviants count for much.
Communists conquered the United States by embarrassing women for their natural role in the home so that they become restless, drive their men crazy, then leave their children to communist teachers who drug the children because they can't learn under the emotional paralysis of missing their parents.
Obama agenda: dem0ralize through stress to increase dependency.
The ancient Greeks never considered it, despite their society being rife, particularly with pederasty, but other forms of homosexuality that stemmed through it.
But we, in the United States of America, must have it foisted onto us. And in this respect “We, the People” have been defeated.
For now.
Only according to the state. There are some faiths that don’t think a license is the determining factor to decide if someone is married or not. There are some that are proposing that perhaps the best thing the Church could do is stop being involved in civil marriage at this point. There are decent arguments on both sides of that, in my opinion.
I think maybe the Church should have made a bigger deal out of the state’s definition of marriage when civil divorce and remarriage was recognized by the state, maybe so many wouldn’t be conditioned that the state defines marriage at this point. Because after civil divorce and marriage came very easy civil divorce and remarriage, and now ‘gay marriage.’ Makes you wonder what the state will be calling marriage 100 years from now, probably incestual child clone marriage or something.
Freegards
Leftists’ goal: abolish the natural family and replace it with the state.
Placemark for pinging tomorrow.
Up until 1967, my marriage, which has produced a daughter and granddaughter, would have been a felony as a result of a seldom enforced miscegenation law. Now, that same marriage is considered Bigoted and Discriminatory? Amazing how society defines itself.
We just don't think homosexuals and other deviants count for much.
I just don't think homosexuals and other deviants count for much.
There. Fixed it for you. You're welcome.
Did you see the new Superman movie where all natural births in Krypton were abolished under state control?
I’m not grateful. No thanks will be forthcoming for which you can respond with a courteous answer.
If you wish to register disagreement, please proceed, by all means. I’m not a Liberal, after all, so I will make no attempt to stop you or take over both sides of a conversation, as would a Liberal.
Just don’t pretend that your Liberality gives you leave to elbow in and control what others have to say as though the words are your own. They are not.
The Judeo-Christian Tradition holds homosexuality to be an abomination. Witness the depravity of Sodom (that is, the depravity of Sodomites). See Genesis 19. See Leviticus 18. See 1 Corinthians 6.
If you wish to register dissent, please do. I welcome dissent. That doesn’t mean I must agree, or that others may take over what I say. Do not think you can Pelosi this forum. You may not.
Jus' buildin' the kingdom of the anti-Christ.
YHAOS, I decided to respond privately. But I would ask, for teh purposes of this public thread, exactly who are the ‘we’ you were referring to in your original post?
And (at the risk of getting you more exercised over this) please don’t make assumptions about my views on the basis of one exception I took (misguided as you might think it may be) to your posting.
Very well, then. For the purposes of this public thread. Read the original post. What does it say? What authority did I cite in my riposte to your response?
”. . . .please don’t make assumptions about my views on the basis of one exception I took . . . ”
Then don’t attempt to Pelosi my postings. You not only took exception. Your behavior conveyed the presumption that your exception was categorical and must be accepted as definitive. What did you think my assumption would be?
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.