1 posted on
11/08/2003 1:33:55 AM PST by
kattracks
To: goldstategop
Let's not vote for anyone who wins the New Hampshire primary.
To: kattracks
Let's see if those like Andrew Sullivan and other gay men and women attack this. They are so forceful in demanding "equal rights" when it comes to the so-called benefits of marriage, I wonder if they are willing to also accept the consequences.
Sex outside of marriage, if not agreed to by both parties, is adultery pure and simple.
I just can't understand the "gay marriage" argument about perceived benefits. Unless they are willing to accept the laws of marriage, which include adultery, divorce, etc., then they are phoney.
Do they then want special laws for themselves in a divorce case? A child custody case? If so, forget it unless you give those benefits to all.
To say gay sex isn't adultery is amazingly stupid. Is NH finally being taken over by Vermont liberals that preach about their utopia but move to NH for less taxes and try to shove their social view on everyone else?
Live Free Or Die is the motto of New Hampshire. It would be a shame if they too get sucked up into liberalism.
3 posted on
11/08/2003 1:46:55 AM PST by
Fledermaus
(I'm a conservative...not necessarily a Republican.)
To: kattracks
New Hampshire dictionaries obviously include the definitions for adultry. I wonder if they bothered to check the definition of the word 'Intercourse'??
8 posted on
11/08/2003 2:23:39 AM PST by
Pipeline
To: kattracks
The Court of David Souter...
Coming to the U.S. Supreme Court?
9 posted on
11/08/2003 2:36:35 AM PST by
Mr. Morals
(Bush is a Liberal)
To: kattracks
The point has never been who diddled who but who diddled...
10 posted on
11/08/2003 4:22:55 AM PST by
Caipirabob
(Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
To: kattracks
I wonder how this ruling would affect male lesbians?
To: kattracks
I heard another sex/law story yesterday:
An adult male was convicted on sexual charges for having sex with an adolescent girl...over the internet.
So lets see if I've got this right. It's not sex if 2 women (or presumably men) perform what would appear to a rational person as sex acts upon one another. But it is sex if the "acts" are performed individually and seperately while connected via internet or phone.
Go finger...I mean figure!
12 posted on
11/08/2003 5:41:17 AM PST by
awgie2
To: kattracks
Am I crazy in a sane world, or sane in a crazy world?
I can't believe all the crap going on!
15 posted on
11/10/2003 9:43:55 PM PST by
lonestar
(Don't mess with Texas)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson