Posted on 12/08/2004 10:14:16 AM PST by gidget7
Sen. Kennedy Says Opponents of “Gay Marriage” Are Bigots Sen. Edward Kennedy has told A.P. that opponents of “gay marriage” are bigots. The news service reported last week: “Meanwhile, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy criticized supporters of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, saying that would be a civil rights setback. “Kennedy said bigotry should not be written into the federal constitution, and constitutional amendments should be about expanding rights and liberties.”
Unitarians Confirm Our Forecast that Group Sex Will be Next The Unitarian Church is now welcoming those who believe in group relationships including the practice of “romantic love.” When we forecast last year that group sex, both heterosexual and homosexual, would quickly follow “gay marriage,” we were ridiculed. The full text of the Unitarian statement is linked here.
(Excerpt) Read more at massnews.com ...
Never been to a UU service (might try it if I'm feeling really freaky)but I do know they basically started out as Deists with the outer veneer of mainstream Protestantim. A few UU groups have taken in Wiccans under their umbrella. I wonder why folks just don't start the the First Church of Eros?
Or trisexual, they'll try anything...
Where do Unitarians stand on Pharohs, Mayans, and Aztecs?
is that an argument against traditional marriage?
We meet every 2nd Saturday.
It's a joke along the lines of "Take my wife... please."
The UU church in my neck of the woods is more a political entity than a church these days. I've been once or twice and every time it was a political "sermon" with various sidebars organizing anti-war protests, PETA potlucks, etc.
It's barely a church, IMHO - maybe it once was (and the anticipated original Deist-with-a-protestant-flavor was what made me go those few times) but that's long gone.
LQ
Oh I am sure they would be welcome at a group sex encounter. Where do they stand on them ???? I am sure they would be affirmed and included with enthusiasm at any of their services along with their weird religious beliefs.
wow, what a denomination. bet they have some real swinging private parties.
it was funny. I just thought you were so anti- this you weren't joking.
A man and a woman who have never met before find themselves in the same sleeping carriage of a train. After the initial embarrassment, they both manage to get to sleep; the woman on the top bunk, the man on the lower.
In the middle of the night the woman leans over and says, "I'm sorry to bother you but I'm awfully cold and I was wondering if you could possibly pass me another blanket."
The man leans out and, with a glint in his eye, says, "I've got a better idea... let's pretend we're married."
"Why not?" giggles the woman.
"Good," he replies. "Get your own blanket!"
Polygamy is the logical next step from this statement. Since Massachusetts is the battleground (U-Boat Teddy's involvement) and unitarianism is big in MA compared to other areas of the USA, it will be a short time before polygamy is brought before the Supreme Court of MA and accepted.
The left is playing a shell game. While the conservatives wait years in committee for passage of an emasculated edicts, marriage protection amendments, and the like, the courts will allow everything not spelled out exactly in the MA constitution.
The left is using the constitution against the constitution both in the states and at the federal level.
Meanwhile, each decision stirs up debate which brings the activities into the mainstream consciousness. Someone uses Roman law over biblical prudence in an argument and BOOM: Instant tolerance. Add the fact that people tend to stay away from arguments in a letigious society and you have acceptance protected under the canopy of defacto rule.
Translation: We don't believe in much of anything at all. What ever you want to do is cool. Be nice.
What a religion...
A conservative might not be in favor of state-sanctioned relationships at all. Do you realize that if you can pass an amendment saying marriage is between a man and a woman, you can pass one saying it isn't?
Is that like the founder of Greenpeace saying most enviromentalists are wakkos and troublemakers?
A conservative might not be in favor of state-sanctioned relationships at all. Do you realize that if you can pass an amendment saying marriage is between a man and a woman, you can pass one saying it isn't?
What??? But Mr. Rank-and-File Liberal told me that would never happen! He accused me of being paranoid and a hate-monger. He said that same-sex marriage and polygamy have NOTHING to do with each other and I was ridiculous for even bringing it up. You don't suppose Mr. Rank-and-File Liberal was wrong, do you???
Done!
Thanks.
>>>Sen. Kennedy Says Opponents of “Gay Marriage” Are Bigots<<<
Who gives a 'RAT's arse what this fat drunken killer thinks?
As y'all can guess, I thank God for not allowing me to get involved with the Unitarians either!!
<><
In case of bigamy a mans only hope is to get a really high paying job and hope the women keep each other occupied shoe shopping.
So, lets lose the battle and not the war. If we were really worried about morality/Biblical guidelines, divorce would be illegal. Once the barrier is breached, little is left that can be supported. Laws protecting kids being a prime example of things that can. Was the government founded on certain ethics received from Mosaic law? Sure it was. It was also founded on slavery.
Its hypocritical for us to cite all of the terrible things government does in its daily functions, and then cry for it to protect morals. It can't spend our money but it can keep our religion? It should be out of the business of making preferences, altogether.
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.