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


1 posted on 11/08/2003 1:33:55 AM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: goldstategop
Let's not vote for anyone who wins the New Hampshire primary.
2 posted on 11/08/2003 1:36:27 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (When you're low on ammo, make each shot count.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
I wonder how this ruling would affect male lesbians?
11 posted on 11/08/2003 5:24:12 AM PST by disclaimer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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