Posted on 06/04/2005 9:43:30 AM PDT by CHARLITE
And the someone loves their dog, their sister/brother? Should those that suffer from other mental disorders have the state sanctioned right to marry someone with the same disorder? Should bleeders have the state sanctioned right to marry?
We have a society to keep stable, here, for the good of all therein. Sanctioned and institutionalized homosexuality is either a major contributor to the destruction of non-invaded and conquered cultures in the past or an indicator it is crashing.
The sign of it is never good whether it is the engine or the speedometer.
Disagreement noted, but I think it is erroneously based on equating love with "intimate physical acts." Perhaps the love and affection present in a long term gay relationship can be defended as love, but the abnormal oral and anal features of promiscious and short-term same sex "love" cannot.
Yeah, and so should Michael Jackson...
Some people love their sister. Some love their dog...
I just think you are a pervert weirdo...
It is horrifying that many of our leaders in Church, government, education, and entertainment disagree and applaud this "Sad" and un-natural life style that is so distructive and disgusting.
Who is he that is not of woman borne?
I would love to talk about the subject with you little squirt, but my time here is over...
I too have noticed more of the newer members defending the queer life style.
Maybe not over yet but with disparaging remarks like that to other members it may be drawing to an end.
Just tell them if they screw with the natural order of things 97% of us live by, they will get a big push back.
It is too obvious to be ignored, isn't it?
In Platos Euthyphro, Socrates advanced argument that piety to many gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible. Socrates exposed pagan esoteric sophistry.
Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior. Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and are desperately pursuing some esoteric absolution for their guilt-ridden egos.
Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited? The Michael Jackson Complex is fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is a social psychosis catering to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on idolatrous fetishes? Perhaps homosexual marriage and civil union advocates could conclave to enshrine their own phantasmal state religion and consecrate Michael Jackson as its first ecumenical Pope!
I don't think the immorality of less than three per cent of the population can be called a 'shifting paradigm.'
Remember the tater-scrubbing monkey story? The shift didn't come until it reached the fifty per cent mark.
That'll never happen. If it did, the human race would become extinct in a very short period of time.
'Nobody wants to produce
Instead they want to seduce
With a paradigm shift
Casting souls all adrift
We'd be putting our necks in a noose.
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
You wrote:
For whatever reason, God made some people love their same sex.
God does not call a particular behavior an abomination and then create people to practice it.
Homosexual activity is a chosen behavior. It is an abomination to God, and all who practice it are in mortal peril. And the day this nation goes so far at celebrating this abomination by legislating homosexual "marriage", thus perverting and twisting an institution created by God and an ordinance of God, is the day I hope I'm already dead.
A godless nation sanctifying homosexual "marriage"- no, I don't want to be around.
Yes, combat the FReeper, bring him over to the dark side. Use tolerance and civil rights arguements. "I only want to prevent gay bashing" BS. Assault on another is already a crime. If they are here, then its because they fear our reach.
Hope u don't mind some support."I think sadly that some people are gay from birth."I agree with your opinion.I think in time as we learn more about genetics there will be anwsers.I have a question.Let's assume that homosexuals reproduce less frequently than heterosexuals(a pretty safe assumption imo).In each succesive generation wouldn't there would be fewer and fewer homosexuals in the population?Eventually reaching the point of extinction of the homosexual trait.BTW to everyone else,i am not a Log Cabin Republican.
Homosexual union cannot constitute a procreative family. It CAN provide a stable environment in which to raise children, but there seems little evidence that it WOULD. Most homosexual relationships are transient and concerned entirely with sexual gratification, not establishing a family unit (even one that is perverse). What if? I don't know. What if pigs could fly?
You have no evidence that it will dusrupt society by letting two women who love each other get married.
Yes, I do. By definition, it "disrupts" (your word, not mine) the tradition of marriage by forcing us to redefine it more broadly. An expansion of that definition, to respect the perverted wishes of such an insignificant minority, erodes the value of the tradition and gains us nothing.
"Marriage" is an institution consisting of two dimensions: one temporal, one religious. The state has no business proscribing the business arrangements between two people of the same sex. But neither does it have the right to enforce a religious validation of an abhorrent practice.
Homosexuals can be "married" in the eyes of the state without benefit of it being "marriage" in the strictest sense of the word. There is no need to redefine the yardstick to fit the measurement.
Why not impose harsh penalties for divorce?
Separate issue.
Wouldn't that help "stabilize" society?
Probably, but that isn't the issue here.
bump for later
They already do.
As an aside, it was gay animators within the Disney organization that made DisneyWorld gay-friendly. To think that the same people that were making films that entertained the gullible minds of children and creating the fantasy of the "happiest place on earth" were doing some pretty deviant things for their own "entertainment".
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.