Posted on 05/26/2011 8:31:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
NOTICE: FR DOES NOT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT ABORTIONIST, GAY RIGHTS PUSHING BIG GOVERNMENT STATISTS FOR PRESIDENT!!
This message is intended for those posters on FR who seem to have missed my prior statements in this regard and insist on advocating for these bastards.
I'd rather shut the place down than be involved in any effort to install abortionist/gay rights pushing RINOS like Romney or Giuliani into the White House!!
Do NOT push this crap on FR. Take your business elsewhere!! And I don't care how long you've been here!!
HuH?
Where is THIS happening?
NOWHERE!
Whose DOG inherited millions when she died?
Ur right Wagglebee. I was caught up in the propaganda. There are no laws that state that.
Not a troll at all. The argument is that non-gays, not romantically involved, not wanting or able to marry, could form a sort of partnership. Elderly friends or siblings, for example.
In fact, maybe they can do that right now.
The original point, of course, was that this idea is not inherently anti-conservative.
The men who wrote and signed the Constitution left such morality issues up to the states. They never considered that state laws against pornography, prostitution, sodomy and the like were unconstituitonal at all.
Only because of the communist founded ACLU, porn producers and various leftists have those laws been declared “unconsititutional” by rogue SCOTUSes.
I wondered about the ‘huh?’
I have to tell you that I appreciate your honesty and up front exchange. It is refreshing. Usually there are snide attacks (some on this thread) against posters who oppose the agenda because the supporters are too afraid to come right out and state what they think as they believe Jim will ban them. You are an honest poster. And an honorable one.
You are absolutely correct, and proof is that whenever homosexuals win “civil unionhood” what is the very first thing they do? Whine that it’s “second class marriage” and they push for same sex marriage.
LOL!! People get so caught up in the emotion that they forget what they “know”.
We were separated timewise early in this thread and a lot of things brought up were already answered and explined before I tossed my two cents in.
I hope I didn't come across TOO harsh and demanding. I tend to do that too much.
I'd say I don't suffer fools much, but then I have mirrors in my house, so...
The gay rights groups have said as much. It is a tactic t get towards gay marriage. Which destroys the definition of marriage by making it meaningless.
There also then is no legal or moral restrictions from making marriage ANYTHING ANYONE wants it to be. You just let two men or two women “marry”. What if three consenting women want to “marry”? Where do you base your rejection for that? If the gays can marry because of “love” then why not three people “in love” with each other?
It’s the end of society as we know it.
Further everyone here OUGHT TO KNOW that The Communist Manifesto, the operating principles communists had for taking down America, EXPLICITLY STATED one of their ways to do it was to push homosexuality onto society because it would increase perversity and immorality and undermine the moral character of society and harm the traditional family structure. To commies the biblical family unit needs to go away because women and children are captive to men, and they do not want anyone to have a stronger allegiance to family than the state.
What do you mean by 'benefit'?
Yeah. My daughter said “Read that post again!” LOL
And unfortunately I am not immune...
And even if it's not saying it now, it will be in five years. Just ask anyone over the age of 40 about the changes they've seen in politics and the culture that they never, when they were 20, thought they would have seen. I think you have to be either very young or very naive to not see the camel's nose under the tent in such matters.
Thanks DJ. I appreciate that.
Time for the real reasons homosexual activists want “gay marrige” again:
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.]
Or complicit.
There are those who honestly want to see this crap happen.
Probably because they have a stake in it.
For example, they live together, one mostly supports the other, could they file a joint tax return, could one make medical decisions for the other in certain instances, could they transfer property without probate, etc.?
Would these be laws in the states with state established religions?
Connecticut had a state established religion until 1818.
Massachusetts had state established religion until 1833
In New Hampshire you couldn't be a member of the state legislature unless you were Protestant until 1877.
In North Carolina you couldn't be a member of the state legislature unless you were Protestant until 1835 and you couldn't hold public office unless you were a Christian until 1876.
There is no question that these state established religions would not be acceptable today. Many of the laws based on those state established religions would also not be acceptable today.
I’ve read the communist goals for the US. We have “achieved” quite a few of them. *sigh*
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.