Posted on 02/18/2005 7:11:48 AM PST by srm913
<< Whey can't your mom marry a goat if she loves it and makes a commitment? >>
That's coming.
[I kid you not!]
When I've talked about marrying a goat, I wasn't kidding. If someone can change the definition to fit their needs, why can't it be changed by someone else? They will say that an animal can't give consent. So what? You just change that part of the definition.
More like "Gag me with a bowling ball."
Not sure he can find the plumbing...
<< When I've talked about marrying a goat, I wasn't kidding. If someone can change the definition to fit their needs, why can't it be changed by someone else? They will say that an animal can't give consent. So what? You just change that part of the definition. >>
And when I said I 'kid' you not, I wasn't 'kidding,' either.
I kid you not.
I notice that in New Zealand one is required to obtain a government permit to keep a goat.
Is that an indicator of your guvvning fasciSSocialist sheocracy's anticipation of the inevitable spiralling Doug has laid it out here, shaggs?
Is that a Clark-type 'marriage' licence?
Shudddddddddderrrrrrrrrrrrrr ......
That's a keeper.
Other people must have wondered this too. The Republican Party of Texas platform (2004) had to make it clear that the Party supports marriage as a "God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural[-born] man an a natural[-born] woman."
.... spiralling AS Doug ....
Socialist area, Toronto.
11th grader with a 5th grader's vocabulary and writing skills.
A claim of it being equal to racism.
A claim of 27 years of commitment. (Where did he come from? Artifical insemenation? Why did it take 10 years for them to do it?)
It tells me they WANTED a family, just not men. They were willing to raise a child, but unwilling to marry someone who could provide one naturally.
$10 says this kid is really some guy(or guy-wannabe) in the northeast spouting articles from kids in the name of some pro-gay organization.
Heh, he just forgot the part where the teached handed him an "H" as well.
;) You can figure that out on yourself I hope.
Just find the one that furnished the sperm that created you, and you will have a dad, dummy.
Troll much?
I don't think anyone on here would even jokingly call another a "homophobe"
Such a liberal word.
I would make a suggestion to this young 'man'...WHY NOT GO OUT AND FIND YOUR REAL 'FATHER' ??
Wait wait wait... you sure you thought this through?
TWO mother-in-laws telling you they could have done better?
Dear MacDorcha,
"Wait wait wait... you sure you thought this through?
"TWO mother-in-laws telling you they could have done better?"
That's what duct tape is for!
;-)
sitetest
Matt may want to marry one of his dogs, or the cat, or even his sister when he grows up.
Yes. What is speech but an expression of thought? It is one thing to threaten to harm an individual, it is another matter entirely to criticize a person’s behavior. What homophiles want to do is equate criticism with threats. The “logic” is that if you can control what people say in public, then you can ultimately control what the say in private. Of course, it’s twisted logic, and the notion of thought crimes may seem ridiculous, but it is the ultimate goal.
Certainly they do, and as you say, they shouting already. Their rights to express themselves are protected by the Constitution. But they do not want to allow the same rights for those who disagree with them.
Our Constitution grants people the freedom to practice their religion without federal intrusion. Most religions do not view homosexual relations as a legitimate basis for marriage. What is going on in Philadelphia right now is proof that the freedom of "sexual orientation" trumps religious beliefs. How is it possible that people quoting from the Bible get arrested for "ethnic intimidation?" How is it that telling someone they're "going to hell" (a place that legally does not exist) constitutes a threat? And what about people like myself, who regard marriage as a natural institution for one man and one woman in which to raise children, but do not base this view on religion?
I find it highly contradictory that certain groups advocate unconstitutional Hate Speech Laws, but then view an attempt to amend the constitution as political sacrilege.
I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear. I am a newbie, but not a troll. That WAS my attempt at sarcasm. I should have used quotes or rant/sarcasm tags. I find the term homophobe to be rather silly so I like throw it back. Please read my other responses for further clarification, if you'd like.
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.