Posted on 12/16/2006 11:22:33 AM PST by Blackirish
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney's pregnant lesbian daughter Mary will make a "fine mom," President George W. Bush said, sidestepping his past comment that a child ideally would be raised by a mother and father.
Mary Cheney, 37, and her longtime partner, Heather Poe, are expecting their first child, which would be the sixth grandchild for the vice president. Cheney was hired last year as an executive for America Online.
"I think Mary is going to be a loving soul to her child. And I'm happy for her," Bush said in an interview with People magazine.
And if you are *saving* the country - how do you feel you are doinf so far? :-)
Right. That's why the citizens of 27 states have enshrined heterosexual marriage in their state constitutions since your buddies in MA launched their extremist attack on the foundations of our American institutions.
So, do you favor polygamy?
Polygamy
Why the hell can't you stick to the actual subject?
Oh yeah, because you are losing.
Typical EV
27 as in 27% for Keyes?
LOL
So it's consciously hurting one of God's creations to say that homosexual acts are unhealthy, unnatural, immoral, and that it is indeed possible to leave the gay life.
According to you, not to me.
And, btw, you're not tactful so you aren't following you own madeup rules! You don't exhibit those list of nice rules that you say others should follow. Why not tolerate the viewpoints that you disagree with? Or is the tolerance, respect, patience and all that good stuff only for others to treat you with?
"NAMBLA wants to make it legal for adults to have sex with children.
My question to you guys is real simple...
What's in the best interest of our nation, to move away from this, or to move toward it?"
EV - ping me if anyone answers you, okay?
Nambla issue was answered several times.
Now, stick to the issue, lesbian parents and George Bush.
Here is what you said:
No, actually, we're trying to prevent you and others like you from taking us back much further...to the civilizations that destroyed themselves by falling into debauchery and decay. I have no desire to see the American republic go the way of the Roman one, or of Sodom.
And so I ask again. How are you doing in *preventing* the country from being destroyed? The question is: how do you feel you are doing?
And - do you believe that it is your job to condemn and punish sinners or will you leave that to God's capable Hands?
bump
Notice the answer I got on that statement.
Thanks for the bump.
:-)
Why not tolerate the viewpoints that you disagree with?
I do tolerate them. I'm not trying to take away your free speech or have you jailed.
Btw, go back and reread my post. I don't think you understand it. I didn't present things as *rules* I gave some qualities of love. You said you should be loving to all all of God's creations. And I didn't use the word tolerance. That was your choice. So why aren't you tolerant?
And where are your comments on the writings of John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Thomas Paine?
The homosexual agenda cheerleaders can have the floor; it's not fun debating with people who seem stoned, brain damaged, and wedded to moral relativism until death do them part.
Some are undoubtedly leftist plants, others are libertine-arian dupes.
A most unloving post. Do you adhere to your own principles? If you believe you are to be loving - then why do not write loving posts?
I'm a social conservative. I have always identified with the so-called "Christian right" in our party. But lately, I'm beginning to wonder.
When did we get the idea that we are entitled to use the government to enforce our particular brand of Christianity? When did we become so enamoured of using legislation and other forms of government-sponsored compulsion to order society along Christian lines?
I went to two church services today. Interestingly enough, the theme of both of them was "we should be in the world, but not OF the world."
Yet today we have supposedly conservative Christians using every political weapon at their disposal to (in Bill Buckley's words) "immanentize the eschaton."
How many times are you going to opus?
Its not about being "homosexual agenda cheerleaders" its about liberty and freedom, and not having theocrat wannabees like you and EV dictating what people do in private.
Like I said, you would fit in well living in a theocracy, Iran, Tadjikistan, take your pick.
"And where are your comments on the writings of John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Thomas Paine?"
When you comment on the Gay Manifesto I sent you a link to, I'll find the time to read the links and comment.
And, btw, in your spare time please post some quotes from the above worthies illustrating how they support moral libertinism.
I gotta go, have other things to do, and here's a thought for you to think about (but, SS, I don't think you'll be able to untie your mind enough to grasp the concepts.)
"Implicit in the article is the viewpoint that there is no such thing as truth, no such thing as right or wrong. The writers have absorbed the relativistic view inculcated in today's colleges and universities that flexibility and pragmatism, other names for moral relativism, ought to be the sole criteria for belief and action. Adherence to the truth is characterized as impractical rigidity.
"Flexibility and pragmatism were the watchwords of John Dewey, the 20th century's most influential liberal/socialist/progressive. The doctrine of Pragmatism which he popularized was that Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis had proved everything to be continually changing and evolving. Thus there can be no such thing as permanent moral truth from God, or rooted in human nature, because there is no such thing as fixed human nature. Pragmatism, instead, teaches that there are only actions that get one what one wants, or fail to do so, in changing circumstances; the end justifies the means."
I consider myself a social conservative as well. My thing is that expanding the government to the point that personal liberty is encroached upon really sticks in my craw.
Looking at things logically, being homosexual is contrary to what humans have either been created to do or, if that is your belief, evolved into being.
Men and women are equipped in that manner for a certain purpose. Whether you are a creationist or evolutionist, Humans have evolved or were created for a certain purpose in that arena.
However, God also gave Humans the ability to determine what path they wish to take. God, I'm absolutely sure, understands that some will take the path away from Him and His Son, while others will use His and His Son for their own HUMAN purposes. We have both here I think. Our Constitution GUARANTEES the freedom to be whatever you want to be. Hate to tell everyone that, but some will choose to be whatever they please.
Maybe that's not a conservative idiom, I'm not sure. I know what it isn't though. It's NOT an authoritarian idiom, which is what this thread if FULL of.
Do you honestly think that every homosexual is a believer of your gay manifesto? Seriously, do you think they all have a convention and make everyone sign it and that they must believe it?
Don't tell me you are that naive.
So were you lying when you told the man who posted the links for you that you would read them and comment today?
Isn't lying a moral sin? Or at least a moral failing? In other words isn't lying immoral?
Change your tag.
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.