Posted on 08/16/2006 9:50:04 AM PDT by Abathar
More stupid apologies.
More stupid apologies.
This is the only offensive thing that has been said.
The type of rhetoric used by Janet Rowland is a good example of that commonly used by Phyllis Schlafly in her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment (Which by the way, is a favorable comparison)
There are a lot of people who take a particular stand on things like the Equal Rights Amendment, and...hey...that sounds okay...I have no problem with that. Equal rights is a GOOD thing, right?
Then along comes Phyllis Schlafly, who asks the questions nobody wants to hear, or just hadn't thought of, as this woman Rowland did. It is not always comfortable to hear these things, but, then again...who wants to hear about the details of homosexual relationships, which are constantly foisted on us? I am sorry they think there is a problem with Bestiality, but as she said, 50 years ago, homosexuality was on par with bestiality in the minds of most normal people.
Look, the Republicans are never going to get the gay vote. Why can't these candidates speak their mind?
Fact is, when you express shock at the man-beast or father-daughter "relationship" you're making a moral judgment. So, if homosexuals can make such a judgment then we're free to make judgment against their particular, um, lifestyle.
I am sick of gutless republicans apologizing for speaking their minds. Say it how you feel it and to hell with the whining wussies who cry about it. No wonder the world doesn't respectus, we cringe and cower in the face of being called insensitive.
Sounds fine to me....
The article was noticably lacking a cogent rebuttal to her point.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)
Hey Bill,, I find the sodomites demands for normal people to accept their disgusting disease spreading practices offensive, close-minded derogatory and crude! Now apologize!
What you shove, & where you shove it... I dont care to know! It's not my business, I don't want or need to know! Go back in the closet!
You are NOT NORMAL! YOU ARE SICK! Stop spreading your disease!
Its about love... But some people love animals.. say dogs.. With some love and sex are two sides of the same coin.. This question should be shouted from the rooftops..
Is marriage all about KIDs or not?.. Some people love their automobiles..
Forgive me for my naivete on this subject... but wouldn't that thing they do with the gerbils count as bestiality?
No, the ones who are out of touch are the folks who are pretending that it's perfectly normal for men to diddle each other, and for women to ... well, never mind.
Homosexuality is not akin to bestiality because the animal has no choice in the affair. Similarly, there is no slippery slope from legalizing gay marriage to legalizing sex with minors because minors are also perceived has not being able to make a concious choice in the matter. The only slipperly slope gay marriage might lead to is polygamy.
She apologized for something she didn't even say which is even worse.
Amazing that people no longer think that gay marriage is absurd. It shows, as the gays themself point out, how the sexual revolution has devalued the sex act. Anything goes.
Here you go from more than six years ago ---
SHOULD A MAN BE ALLOWED TO MARRY HIS GOAT?
Culture/Society Opinion Keywords: WHY NOT A GOAT?
Source: DFU opinion
Published: 3-1-00 Author: Doug from Upland
Posted on 03/01/2000 22:18:11 PST by doug from upland
Sorry, although the title suggests that this is a humorous piece, it is not. Someday, there will be a demand by someone that the state officially recognize a marriage between he and his livestock.
In California voters will decide on March 7 whether the institution of marriage has meaning in the traditional sense. They will be voting on an initiative which is Proposition 22 on the ballot. This initiative statute would provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriages performed in other states and countries would not be legal in California if they did not meet this criterion.
I suspect that as we grow older we tend to hold onto or honor those traditions that have had meaning in our lives. And we would hope that such traditions would have meaning and importance to others.
A man and woman marrying and raising their children has been proven for generation after generation after generation to be the best possible family structure for society. Twenty years ago, never could I have imagined that a proposition such as Proposition 22 would be necessary. It was just assumed that men would marry women, have children and carry on in the traditions that have proven best.
What is behind the proposition, of course, is more than just a question of whether homosexuals may marry and be officially recognized by the state. It is clearly an issue of states rights. Since California does not sanction marriage between other than a man and woman, should it be forced to do so if a couple marries in another state and comes to California?
Homosexuals may live with whom they wish. They may work where they wish although there certainly exists some discrimination in certain job areas. I personally would not want my son to be supervised by a gay scout leader. Homosexuals may own property together. Homosexuals may visit each other in the hospital. And homosexuals may will their property, real or personal, to their partner.
So what is it that they want? If homosexuals are officially recognized by the state as married couples, their union will be recognized as equal to that of heterosexual couples. The next step is clear. Homosexual couples would demand equality in the adoption of children. If their marriage was officially sanctioned and determined to be equal to any others' marriages, how could the argument be refuted?
Now back to my originial suggestion which at first looks preposterous. If two homosexuals can marry, why can't a brother and sister marry, particularly if one is sterile and no deformed children would result? Or, how about two men and a woman or two women and a man? How about a father and his daughter? Or, a father and his son? How about a man and his goat? If a man is in love with his goat, who is to say that such should not be sanctioned? It won't affect you and it won't affect me. If they are happy together, why not? It is not animal abuse. After all, you can kill a goat and eat it. Can someone stop you from having sex with it?
The attempted devaluation of marriage needs to stop now. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That does not need to be fixed. Gays may do what they like behind closed doors and spend their lives with their partners. If a man cannot legally marry another man, that is just too damned bad. If a man cannot marry his goat, that is just too damned bad.
Glad you cleared that up. The rumors were starting to spread...
Stupid comment. Beauprez needs to win the rural vote to win. Fight bestiality AFTER the election.
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.