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

To: steplock
Lots of hetero couples can't reproduce naturally either. Should we forbid them to be married?

Also, about the not going about bragging about bedding your wife, you're on here putting down gay members of our military. I take that as "bragging" you're straight.

For years blacks walked to the back of the bus while whites sat in the front. They were used to it. Nobody bragged or complained about anything. Think of these guys as being fed up, the gay version of Rosa Parks.
50 posted on 01/11/2004 4:02:10 PM PST by Chief Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: Chief Inspector
Would you limit marriage to couples? Or would you extend it to any number of humans?
90 posted on 01/11/2004 9:40:02 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Chief Inspector
It is true that marriage laws allow for "hetero couples who can't produce naturally." These same laws prohibit fathers from marrying their own daughters and women from marrying their own sons irrespective of whether they can reproduce or not. Do you agree with these laws, or should they be thrown on the trash heap of outmoded conventions, too?
92 posted on 01/11/2004 9:48:40 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Chief Inspector
I'll check back for your answers after you have replaced the blown fuse in the common sense panel of your brain.
95 posted on 01/11/2004 9:56:02 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Chief Inspector
For years blacks walked to the back of the bus while whites sat in the front. They were used to it. Nobody bragged or complained about anything. Think of these guys as being fed up, the gay version of Rosa Parks.

A lot of black people are extremely insulted by having race - which is something one is born with, not a choice, and not a set of behaviors, compared with a set of deviant, unhealthy and unnatural behaviors. Behaviors which are inextricably linked with disease, untimely death, promiscuity, higher incidence of child molestation, depression, and have been condemned as unhealthy and unnatural since time immemorial.

103 posted on 01/12/2004 2:07:21 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Chief Inspector
It's a lifestyle CHOICE. Last time I checked, black people couldn't CHOOSE their skin color. To equate Rosa Parks' situation with that of homosexuals is ludicrous.
104 posted on 01/12/2004 2:08:28 AM PST by IrishRainy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Chief Inspector
It is a disgusting imposition for you to compare the duplicitous hate-mongering of homosexual activists to the struggles of blacks to be treated equally.

A homosexual can hide his/her status by not engaging in certain behaviors. A person cannot hide the color of his/her skin.

Blacks were enslaved. Homosexuals are not and were not enslaved (unless we want to count the S&M games of which some of them are so fond). Furthermore, homosexuals are not oppressed. Since much of how one fares in our society depends on how much disposable income one has, homosexuals are doing quite well. Trust me, those companies, etc., who are so sweet to homosexuals lately are doing so only b/c they want to get into their fat wallets--not b/c of any particular liking for their spurious cries of victimization. A Pyrrhic victory for the homosexuals, I'd say.
111 posted on 01/12/2004 7:00:27 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Chief Inspector
I would love to know what the descendants and other fans of Rosa Parks would have to say about that.

Homosexuals have never sat in the back of the bus--in fact, they are currently trying to hog the steering wheel of the bus, no doubt so that they can drive it off a cliff, to further indulge the self-destructive tendencies which so many of them (including you) exhibit.
112 posted on 01/12/2004 7:02:42 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Chief Inspector
Lots of hetero couples can't reproduce naturally either.

SOMEBODY is out there reproducing. And they are doing it by means of hetero sex. If they weren't, there wouldn't be any babies for homosexual couples to adopt.

Let's suppose we make all reproduction into something like cattle sperm farms--the men leave their you-know-what, and highly-intelligent scientists place that you-know-what in the women who line up to be fertilized. Um, is this the Orwellian world we want to live in? No more unions, no more families. Mr. A wants to have a baby with Mrs. A; he can't just go to bed with her, even though they are married, but must put in the proper paperwork with the State, and get it approved, and then he goes and gives the State his you-know-what, and Mrs. A goes and makes her body available for the State's scientists to impregnate?

Are you seriously contending that mass artificial insemination is a better way than what nature has decreed, for the human population to renew itself?

Homosexuals can't get along without heterosexuals. W/O what heteros do, there would be no new people. That's the contribution of heterosexuality to the world. And what exactly is the contribution of homosexuality to the world......? Does it produce babies? How does it make the world a better place?

183 posted on 01/15/2004 5:22:34 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Chief Inspector
NO one is born "gay".

A person born black, white, tan or beige etc. was made that way.

A BIG difference. These folks are sexually perverted BY CHOICE.
190 posted on 01/19/2004 9:28:35 PM PST by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | 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