Posted on 06/27/2003 2:19:02 AM PDT by kattracks
You need to read a bit more. The book of Acts specifically refutes your point of view. The Jewish Apostles knew the Gentiles would corrupt themselves with sexual sins and so proscribed those.
You beat me to it. This may indeed be the beginning of the end of this once great country.
I am the others here are not "afraid" of homsexuals. And we do not call them "gay" because they are not happy, joyful, or carefree. They have stolen a useful word and made it mean disgusting "sex" acts.
My opinion follows. Who cares if they marry?
Most of them don't even want to marry, lesbians consider it a remnant of evil patriarchy and male homosexuals are in general so wildly promosicuous that monogomamy has no meaning. They just want to declare war on the natural order.
Who cares if they have sex?
I don't believe many Freepers want cops searching peoples' private homes to see if people are practicing sodomy or not. What I object to is the normalization of deviancy. Beucase homosexuals' sex appetites are voracious, they have "taken over" so many parks and beaches in their prowling for anonymous "partners". And the AIDS and other diseases they get have to paid for by MY tax money. And now children in schools are being taught the "how-tos".
I've never befriended a gay person and I probably never will. I don't think it has anything to do with subconcious bigotry...
I have two homosexual-identified people in my family. And some rabid homo-supporters. I am very familiar with them. They are angry, lost people. They generally need some kind of medication to get through their lives, to not hear the voice in their hearts telling them they are doing the wrong thing.
I just don't have anything in common with them.
Actually, they so identify with their sexual urges that they make you think that. They keep their sex desires in the forefront of their lives. But inside, they want happiness just as everyone does. They have God in their hearts as everyone does. That is why there are many former homosexuals.
How does it affect you if a gay person gets married?
Even though they are only about 2% of the population, they want to force their against-nature sex acts in everyone's face. If you read much about the SCOTUS decision, they even admit that they now want to oppress the normal majority more and more. It opens the doors to every other unnatural, immoral sex act or "relationship" - are you aware of how many professors and psychologists are pushing adult/child sex as the new frontier? What about brother and sister? Or brother and brother? If there are no moral absolutes (which is what they are saying) where do you draw the line?
Hello, troll - are you here from DU?
Some folks want to draw it at sodomy; most draw it at incest.
As you do, I love liberty and with liberty comes freedom from government intrusion -- an expectation of privacy. We may, however, restrict that expectation of privacy through our republican government and within the constraints of the Constitution.
You must have not read any of the threads about homosexuality of FR. If you had, you would have read more than you care to know about the health problems associated with homosexuality.
It isn't forbidding it that demeans them. It's doing it.
Nice thinking...
UGH. I can only reiterate what Justices Scalia and Thomas both said in their dissents... if you want to argue about minority and majority views, take your fight to the democratic process. The fact that these laws existed means that, up to this point, in these 13 states there did not exist a voting majority that wanted these laws done away with. The greater tragedy here (since these particular laws were almost totally unenforced) is that the Supreme Court is yet again taking the powers of governance from the states, and that more and more both the lawyers fighting for liberal causes and the justices themselves talk about "emerging awarenesses" and the majority views of Americans. The reason that the Supreme Court exists, and why it has lifetime appointments, is precisely because it is not supposed to be subject to the wavering desires of the people, but only to the Constitution. These activists will do anything to see their desires attained, and at this point the only hope for defeating same-sex "marriage" is a Constitutional amendment.
You must have noticed that 90 percent of the anti-gay posters, and 99% of the emotion comes from fundamentalist Christians, not heath care workers. Sure, there's overlap, but just like when socialists suddenly become environmentalists to being down an industry, the motivation's transparent.
Who said anything about torturing animals ? The Bible forbids humans having sex with animals but Sandra O'Connor and her ilk have no use for the Bible in legislative matters. She will not tolerate it. Therefore why would they defraud you of your right to pleasure animals ? Is that worse than killing and eating them ? Why did a Republican appoint her and Kennedy ?!?
There is no limit to the depravity of man but God.
The age of consent used to be 21. Before that it was much lower. Kids were hunting, killing, and marrying in their young teens. The libertine crowd could certainly drop the age of consent again. There is a market for it. They will cry, "Free the teens ! Everybody party !"
What is the difference between homosexuality and incest ? Do don't think the children of homosexuals are going to be warped ? There is a chance for anyone to have a deformed child. With the right to private sexual behavior that Sandra gave out, what business is it of the state ?
The probability of deformity is very high when people are closely related. You know sex without consent is rape. Rape is not "pleasure". You're talking nonsense.
Just how do animals give you consent to kill and eat them ?
What is your source for this ?
Compare and contrast it with other birth defects and the abortion your side of the supreme court endorses.
My Bible has this verse about "the law":
31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:31
From this, it appears that "the Law" of the OT may have been replaced by a new one where love conquers death (John 3:16). I was taught that there was only ONE unforgiveable sin, that of blasphemy or rejection of the Holy Spirit. (Sorry, can't remember that verse.)
1. How do you know that 90% of the posters and "99%" of the emotion (is it wrong to feel strongly about someting?) comes from so-called fundamentalist Christians?
2.Is it wrong to be religious? Does this disqualify one from a debate?
3.And how do you know there aren't health care workers among them?
Many observant Jews are also opposed to defining deviancy down.
FYI, I would be considered a Hindu.
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.