Posted on 08/04/2010 2:15:45 PM PDT by JoeProBono
And destroying any semblance of Judeo-Christian society.
Because he hasn’t gotten banned yet. Hopefully that will occur soon.
Millers Cave has left the building.
So far Filo and Millers Cave have been banned in the last hour or so. Promoters of homosexual marriage are not welcome on FR, nor are those who want sexual perverts in the military.
I love homosexuals because they are souls who are in reality children of God. I hate what they do and promote. Loving someone doesn’t mean you have to approve of or agree with their actions and beliefs. And when those actions and beliefs are unnatural, unhealthy and immoral, it is stupid and destructive to affirm destructive behavior and agendas in the name of “love”.
Tough Love is what is needed, not confused sentiment which only helps keep people headed off the cliff. If I loved a drug addict would it be loving to encourage him to keep up his habit, or to encourage him to get clean?
If someone really loves homosexuals, he or she will encourage them to seek help. There are many organizations both secular and of faith that help homosexuals get out of the destructive “gay” life. That’s real love. Not helping keep people in the lie that they are born homosexual and they cannot change.
The judges ruling is a joke. Basically cause banning gay marriage made the gays feel bad it was wrong.
Apparently, if I interpret what is going on correctly, you can argue that people have rights irrespectuve of the votes of the majority, but if those people are homosexuals, then you’re “pro-homosexual” people call the owner and you’re gone. Why run threads on the subject?
The Stupid It Burns. Oh and I don’t mean you I mean the Judge’s statement.
Well, I didn’t ban him - you’ll have to ask a mod.
I would say that he was being deceitful in his “libar(al)tarianism. Liber(al)tarians never put up decent arguments, as their entire philosophy is internally inconsistent, and will never work in real life and never has. It would only work if everything, including human nature, were entirely different. It’s basically a wet dream.
Plus he was using standard homosexual agenda talking points, for one. I didn’t check his posting history or signup date. A lot of pro-homo agenda trolls get banned and keep signup up again, could have been one of those re-treads.
Throughtout history homosexual acts have been illegal and there has never been same sex marriage.
There is no earthly good reason to allow two people of the same sex to be “married”.
Here are the real reasons why homosexual activists want same sex marriage, and these reasons have nothing to do with “love” or monogamy:
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
Save your breath. I know better than to argue with you. I have seen how it works on this subject. I stated what I thought was going on and I want to stay around. That’s all.
After I posted the above I decided maybe I had misunderstood you.
I don’t want to slam anyone about homosexual agenda stuff unless they really deserve it!
;-)
I’ve had enough of the plunge down the vortex of liberal immorality.
God has spoken. He told the early fathers (Abraham, Job, etc...) that Sodomy was wrong. He condemned it.
He told Moses it was wrong and condmened it.
Jesus told us it was wrong and condemned it.
This country was founded by people who believed in God and believed living, AND GOVERNING, by a moral code.
I’m tired of the liberal attacks to tear down all moral values espoused by God and adopted by the founders.
God hates anarchy. Either we choose a set of moral principle to live by, or we make them up as we go.
If we choose the latter, we condemn ourself to a death of depravity.
I would say that the premise you base your question upon is flawed -it has no scientific, factual, or historical basis.
There are no homosexual beings. There are heterosexual beings with heterosexual being a precise scientific term describing a two sexed process of procreation. Homosexual describes but a recreational sex act that heterosexuals are physically able to engage in. Some heterosexuals, a small percentage, assert and claim they are predisposed to this disordered activity.
IF this were not the case and there were separate homosexual beings then there could be no don't as don't tell policy -homosexual beings would simply be identified. As well, the downtrodden and oppressed homosexual minority now at the mercy of the powerful heterosexuals would be eligible to eat the public trough with all the other oppressed minorities now getting all manner of preference, set-aside, subsidy, and reparations...
As an aside --the pulled heart strings "love argument" is ofyen used to promote homosexual sex -the "love factor" is often touted as beneficial to society -it too is flawed. Can one love without having sex -children and parents practice this sexless love all the time without any problems...
Anyway -your premise is flawed -you have been duped. There are many useful idiots duped by the progressive agenda -do not feel bad. Remember -it is not about separate beings or about love -it is all about a particular sexual activity that is on an individual and societal basis self-destructive in nature... Progressive promote this...
As far as why the subject is discussed here -primarily to know what the progressives -the enemy of truth and legitimate freedom is up to and as well educate any here upon the reality and facts that fly in the face of the flowery platitudes the left promotes disorder and self-destruction with...
But the fairies are welcome to try and force us to approve of their diseased life style and radically remake American society to their liking. That’s what this “queerly beloved” movement is about.
lol, that’s what I was thinking.
LOL. I previously obesrved that it seems if you take a position opposing yours, you would be be banned because the owner forbids those views from being posted. And now you expect me to respond otherwise to your reply. My father taught me when I was young to avoid traps when one was walking around. Life lesson.
they should have gone too, they were nothing but pro homosexual agenda and certainly not conservatives.
How many times does JR have to say that this site is not here for those pushing the homosexual agenda and that this is conservative site
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.