Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush: happy for Cheney's gay daughter pregnancy
Reuters ^ | 12/15/06

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.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: barfalert; busybodies; familyvalues; fantasy; fatherlesschild; fertilty; fetish; homosexual; liberalism; liberals; makingnice; moralabsolutes; moralrelativism; perverts; purists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 741-760761-780781-800801-807 next last
To: Wallace T.
Are you stating that Christ taught that homosexuality, or indeed any sex outside the confines of marriage, is a morally neutral or a moral act?

You lead with a question like that?

Pray tell, where but from some cyber orifice of yours could you draw that implication from the words I posted?

781 posted on 12/18/2006 4:47:55 PM PST by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: KDD
If you condemn those Christian posters who oppose homosexuality and its normalization and acceptance in American society as having deviated from Christ's teachings, you presumably believe that He taught a doctrine other than what may be found in Scripture on the matter of homosexuality.
782 posted on 12/18/2006 4:53:42 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
Do you think these "Christian" posters are trying to minister to homosexuals with spiritual love...are they a shining example of what Jesus taught? I don't believe so.

29:And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.

30:But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?

31:And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
Book of Luke

Matthew 7
1:Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2:For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3:And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4:Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5:Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye

So while these "Christians" are busy condemning posters who refuse to play God and condem homosexuals, they should be ministering to the homosexuals that they feel are spiritually ill.

783 posted on 12/18/2006 5:13:23 PM PST by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 782 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Not all Christians are given the gift of ministering or witnessing. "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues." (I Corinthians 12: 7-10, NKJV) There are ministries that witness to homosexuals, to call for their repentance and salvation, but not all Christians are called to such ministries. Others are called for the ministry of discernment, such as those who recognize the immoral nature of homosexuality as well as an agenda on the part of homosexuals and their allies among secular humanists and Marxists to overthrow Christian influence and Biblical morality in America and the West. Neither are all Christians called to this type of ministry. Christian believers are part of the spiritual body of Christ. Paul's analogy of the church to a body indicates that both types of ministry, and others as well, have their proper role. As Paul stated in I Corinthians 12:11 (NKJV): "But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills."

To take Christ's words regarding judgment in the Sermon on the Mount to mean that we are to suspend discernment and suppress wisdom is against the whole counsel of Scripture. "Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?" (I Corinthians 6: 2-3, NASB) The power that Christ gave the church to "bind and loose", the admonition of Paul to church discipline in I Corinthians 5, the "sword" given to the civil magistrate in Romans 13, the praise Luke gives to the people of Berea in Acts 17 for examining the Scripture daily all imply the power of judgment is in the hands of the Christian believers, the church, and the civil authorities.

The true context of the admonition in the Sermon on the Mount is with respect to unjust judgment. As an analogy, the condemnation of adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, etc., does not mean that the Christian faith is opposed to sex. Rather, it is commended within the bonds of traditional matrimony, even if condemned elsewhere.

784 posted on 12/18/2006 6:16:04 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
all imply the power of judgment is in the hands of the Christian believers, the church, and the civil authorities.

You have provided us with the best definition of Shria Law, Christen style, now haven't you?

785 posted on 12/18/2006 6:40:08 PM PST by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of world history and political theory should recognize that there is no more resemblance between the U.S. Constitution as originally intended and the English common law concepts and natural rights theory that underlies our foundational document and sharia law than there is between the original intent of our Constitution and the secular humanism and positivism that underlies modern day judicial theory.

As I pointed out in earlier posts, the natural rights theory was outlined by the Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas, who was influenced by both Scripture and Aristotle, and developed by Protestant legal theorists in the 17th and 18th Centuries like Grotius, Locke, and Blackstone, who were the principal influences on the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers. The fact that this natural rights theory was accepted by the Founders, Christian or not, did not cause them to abandon English common law with respect to various forms of sexual misconduct. By and large, these laws remained on the books in all states until 1960. If the underlying principles of American government until about 45 years ago were the same as sharia law, then the implication is that all 50 states were authoritarian theocracies for most of our country's history.

As for the red herring you introduced about judgment and sharia law, perhaps a review of the definition of judgment is in order, in this case from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary: "a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion b : an opinion so pronounced". Utterance of an authoritative opinion is not an exclusive role of government. Until recently, Bill Gates' opinion was authoritative in Microsoft. Pope Benedict XVI is clearly authoritative in Roman Catholicism. Einstein's scientific opinions have been authoritative among physicists. Microsoft, the Catholic Church, and the physicist community are not governments, yet they have had persons who speak authortiatively.

With regard to the Biblical citation, the judgment of the believers, as cited in Acts 17 or I Corinthians 6, have nothing to do with the civil government. The authority of the church, with respect to "binding and loosing" or church discipline, is within the body of believers and not the entire world. A church may fire a pastor or expel a member, just as a company may fire a CEO or an employee, but that has nothing to do with civil government. The "sword" of the magistrate in Romans 13 were made in the context, not of a government of Christian believers, but of the pagan Roman Empire. Paul was admonishing not the overthrow of the pagan authorities by Christians but their submission to these authorities. Paul's attitude and that of the Christians during 250 years of Roman persecution stand in stark contrast with Mohammed and the Muslims of the 6th and 7th Centuries AD, who spread their faith by fire and sword.

786 posted on 12/18/2006 7:27:01 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

It's not your business what she does.


787 posted on 12/18/2006 7:29:24 PM PST by ShandaLear (Perfect People Need Support, too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ShandaLear
"It's not your business what she does."


When she proclaims it in the national press, she makes it my business.

She and her "partner" have chosen to make this into a spectacle and she's holding this up as natural and normal and good.

It's the right and duty of those who disagree with this pro-gay propaganda to speak up.
788 posted on 12/18/2006 7:35:30 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
It's the right and duty of those who disagree with this pro-gay propaganda to speak up.

Amen!

789 posted on 12/18/2006 7:37:25 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Pray tell, where but from some cyber orifice of yours could you draw that implication

And you're telling me that I'm full of hate?

790 posted on 12/18/2006 9:42:50 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Circumstances are the fire by which the mettle of men is tried.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
They can say whatever they want. But you can't force me to agree with what I know to be wrong.

Just like how you can't force any voters to vote for your candidate...LOL

We've made some real progress here. You've finally admitted they have basic first amendment rights after 2 days of avoiding it....
791 posted on 12/18/2006 10:24:18 PM PST by MikefromOhio (Go Bucks!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 775 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

"Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice" bump.


792 posted on 12/18/2006 10:33:08 PM PST by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName (You lie, cheat and steal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 751 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You realize, of course, that liberals, RINOs, and assorted other defenders of vice and foul behavior are never guilty of hate. Only EEEEEEEEEEEEvil conservative heterosexuals who adhere to traditional moral values are guilty of hate. Remember the slogan of Big Brother and the Party in the novel 1984:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS BLISS

793 posted on 12/19/2006 5:19:42 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: NoCurrentFreeperByThatName

Always easy to win an argument when EV is on the other side.

Especially when he has to go hide behind JR.


794 posted on 12/19/2006 6:08:39 AM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Pro Evolution, Pro Stem Cell Research, Pro Science, Pro Free Thought, and Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

That pretty much sums it up.


795 posted on 12/19/2006 12:43:14 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Circumstances are the fire by which the mettle of men is tried.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 793 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
Are you advocating that sodomy be illegal? You realize that many heterosexuals engage in sodomy?

Do you believe that no one has a *right* to do what you believe is wrong?

796 posted on 12/19/2006 12:57:06 PM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
Prior to 1960, homosexual sodomy was illegal in all states. You and other "gay rights" advocates have equated such laws, universal in pre-1960 America with the Taliban, a position that equates our country for most of its history with Afghanistan in the 1990s. Do you believe the 50 states were theocracies until the last 45 years?

As far as it goes, we still have laws that restrict sexual freedom: sex with underage minors is illegal in all states, as are polygamy, bestiality, and necrophilia. Sexual intercourse of any sort is prohibited in public places almost everywhere. Governments have prohibited certain sexual activities in most time periods and most places, not only in America but worldwide. Prohibition of public sex may be justifiable for the sake of public order, but there is no public order issue with respect to polygamy or pederasty.

The existence of state-imposed limitations is true with respect to other freedoms. If you say we have absolute freedom of speech, for example, please tell me the last time you saw an advertisement for Marlboro cigarettes. Political and religious speech have generally been protected since the foundation of the Republic, but commercial speech is regulated considerably, and more so than was the case prior to 1930. The questions should be: should any boundary be placed on sexual activity and, if so, where should they be set?

With regard to the issue of rights, we must also distinguish what are the natural rights of man and what is the proper sphere of government. The fact that there is no right to do wrong does not necessarily mean that there is justification for state intervention. For example, a private company may fire a well qualified, competent employee for a less competent one because the latter is favored by management for some reason or other. As long as there is no breach of contract on the part of the employer and existing labor laws are followed, the competent employee may be fired. The firing may be immoral, but in a capitalist society, it is not a matter for state intervention. A person could be guilty of gluttony or excessive drinking, actions, though while sinful to Christians and others, are not generally subject to state intervention, even though an indigent obese person or alcoholic may become a charge to Medicaid or Medicare.

In present day America, governments do prohibit certain forms of sexual activity, even though the laws that prohibit consensual homosexual sodomy have been repealed or overturned. Furthermore, even if natural law theory denies the existence of a "right" to do wrong and Judeo-Christian morality denounces certain activities as wrong, general practice in certain areas, such as labor relations and self-destructive behavior, has been for noninterference by the state.

Do you believe that there should be no restrictions on sexual activity of any sort, except possibly for sexual intercourse in public areas? Additionally, all legislation is based on some moral code, even those, such as in the former Soviet Union, that do not draw upon a religious viewpoint. What moral code should be the foundation for the law?

797 posted on 12/19/2006 2:31:22 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
All you needed to do was answer my two questions. YOu have, as yet, not asnwered the first - so I will ask it a second time:

Do you want sodomy to be an illegal activity?

I think in some kind of winding way you have answered my second question - I think you are saying that *yes* people have the *right* to do what you think is wrong.( Which is the opposite of Eternal Vigilance's answer.)

I will wait for your answer - (just a yes or no is find) to my first question.

798 posted on 12/19/2006 2:38:49 PM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 797 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
Neither you nor your fellow "gay rights" advocates have given any answers to the questions I have posed in my last thread and other postings over the last couple of days:

* Was pre-1960 America, where homosexual sodomy was illegal in all states, a union of 50 authoritarian theocracies similar to present day Iran or Saudi Arabia?
* Do governments have any justification for restricting sexual freedom? (While homosexual sodomy, adultery, and fornication are now legal, other forms of sexual activity remain illegal.)
* By what standard are the laws of a country properly based?

799 posted on 12/19/2006 2:52:26 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
Right, I have not written posts to you. *You* wrote a post to me - and the only thing I personally want to discuss of the things you have posted is whether or not you, like EV, think that people have no *right* to do wrong. I see that view as similar to how Islamists think - (which if you have been reading my posts - you already know). Though you did not answer clearly - I think you are saying that *no* you don't agree with EV and that you do think people have the *right* to do wrong.

The other issue that I find of interest in your writing is I want to know whether you are advocating for a law against sodmomy.

Just as I don't agree that slavery was a good law - or the denial of voting rights to women - I see laws against sodmony as repressive.

As I have said in several posts - I advocate for the most freedom possible. That would include freedom to engage in acts that some disapprove of - as adultery, fornication, sodomy, divorce etc. I do not want to see such things a rape of children legal - or rape itself legal. I think consenting adults - that catch phrase - should be a guide in sexual activites.

800 posted on 12/19/2006 3:26:08 PM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 741-760761-780781-800801-807 next 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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