Skip to comments.
Gay Republicans fight perceived oxymoron
Associated Press ^
| 10/20/06
| DAVID CRARY
Posted on 10/20/2006 12:22:57 PM PDT by presidio9
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-124 next last
To: HitmanLV
In my experience most people fixated on sexual sin have an enormous blind spot:
OK, so long as we're clear on that.
To: beezdotcom
I call them like they are.
102
posted on
10/21/2006 8:55:28 PM PDT
by
HitmanLV
("If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you do succeed." - Jerry 'Curly' Howard)
To: Almondjoy
I'm not saying they aren't going against the book.. but you are wrong in thinking they are the only class of people to do so.
Hah. You're wrong to think that I think that. And, you're still trying to rebut a point that I'm not even trying to make.
Once again, let me restate it: my beef is not with sinners, but with people who won't even agree in the abstract that sin is sin, without regard to their particular practice of that sin.
To: HitmanLV
I call them like they are.
You call them like you see them...sometimes, that's quite a different statement.
To: Almondjoy
I choose to pick the best person to put my country in the best place for as many people to have a great relationship with God.. and sometimes that means voting someone who is not Christian or a homosexual.
Sure. However, all other things being equal, I'll vote for the one who isn't a known thief, homosexual or other deviant (assuming they exist).
To: beezdotcom
You've made some great points. Common sense is in short supply these days.
I must confess I am very disappointed in Condi Rice. There is no such thing as a homosexual, who claims to have a domestic partner, having a mother in law. That recognition just feeds in the misconceptions of the wacky left, and irrational disregard for reality. In that regard, gay Republican is very much an oxymoron!
106
posted on
10/22/2006 12:30:14 PM PDT
by
gidget7
(Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job)
To: gidget7
That's just stupid. There is no reason that this society can't have domestic partners if so chooses to do so. The problem I have comes in the definition of marriage.
Like I tried to tell the other guy who just doesn't get it. We weren't meant to take God's law and force people to be Christians.
That's un-Christian in itself.
To: Almondjoy
We weren't meant to take God's law and force people to be Christians.
Where, exactly, have I advocated that? Quote, please.
To: Almondjoy
"I'm not saying they aren't going against the book.. but you are wrong in thinking they are the only class of people to do so."
I must interject even though the post was not to me.
No they are not the only people who "go against the book", (I reject the word class) However, it is not the people we are against, it is the behavior and the forcing of their ideology on everyone else. When was the last time you saw a parade to celebrate pride in lying? adultery? pornography? voyeurism? coveting thy neighbor? stealing? etc?
When was the last time you saw proposals to give any of the above sins special recognition or the right to exercise their chosen sin? When was the last time you saw a proposal for a law banning speech that disagrees with their right to conduct their lives as they wish and behave in such a way as to sin in their chosen way? When was the last time you saw or heard of schools teaching that those behaviors were healthy and normal and just another lifestyle choice? When have you ever heard of churches being attacked for preaching the wrongs of any of these behaviors?
THAT is what we don't support. THAT is why we are forced to focus on this particular sin, and not others. And anyone who is in our party with the objective to change or soften the party to their chosen behavior and for helping to grant these special recognitions for it, does not belong there.
109
posted on
10/23/2006 11:46:51 AM PDT
by
gidget7
(Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job)
To: presidio9
56 openly gay Dhimmis in one state legislature? My God, the Dhimmis are now just the gay party, I guess.
To: beezdotcom
If you vote for those type of people to be in office it's like you are for it yourself.
To: gidget7
How can we have a discussion when you aren't being honest?
People haven't equated pornography to freedom of speech?
Where have you been?
To: Almondjoy
Yes they have, BUT they are not exposing school kids to it, they are not having parades to celebrate it. And the ones promoting it as free speech are the same activists promoting the gay agenda, and in fact a lot of pornography IS of the homosexual behavior.
You don't see communities fighting to keep homosexuals out, but they do fight pornography shops all the time.
113
posted on
10/23/2006 12:18:47 PM PDT
by
gidget7
(Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job)
To: Almondjoy
Homosexuals are free to make cohabitation contracts same as ANYONE under current law.
Marriage under the law has NOTHING to do with religion in law. Homosexuals have adopted the blind spot meme that all opposition to homosexuals is founded in religion. This is 100% false and in fact just a propaganda lie.
There are many secular and legal reasons to oppose homosexuals being rewared for the stampl of normalcy to their abnormal lifestye choice. Society has every justifiable and sound right to establish marriage as one man and one woman. Homosexuals contribute nothing to societies future and thus society has every reason to disincentive their choices.
114
posted on
10/23/2006 12:18:47 PM PDT
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: Almondjoy
If you vote for those type of people to be in office it's like you are for it yourself.
"those type of people"? You're digging the hole even deeper. Where have I said that I would vote for the type of people who "take God's law and force people to be Christians"? I've only ever stated that I would NOT vote for people who try to tell me that sin is not sin. Your own fixations have caused you to leap well beyond anything I've said.
In fact, if you interpret your words against anything I've actually said, you have come dangerously close to saying that no Christian should hold public office, because they would force people to be Christians. I hope that's not what you meant, but against the backdrop of MY ACTUAL WORDS, it's hard to interpret it differently.
To: longtermmemmory
We are in total agreement.
To: beezdotcom
Apparently you aren't able to back yourself up on that point and have just proven where you stand.
To: Almondjoy
Apparently you aren't able to back yourself up on that point and have just proven where you stand.
I see - because you IMAGINE I've said something I didn't say, and then when you can't SHOW that I said something I didn't say, somehow I'M the one who has to "back myself up". With logic like that, I'm amazed that you've lasted this long on Free Republic.
Keep digging. You may yet get to China.
To: gidget7
To: longtermmemmory
You're right LM, there are plenty of reasons outside of religion.
My responses to almond were only to answer why this sin in particular was something the we are "fixated" on. As I told him, we aren't the ones fixated, and further, we are against the others as well. It only appears this one is more distasteful to us because it is the only one people tend to want to justify, get special rights to commit, and force everyone else to accept as not a sin at all.
That is why the religious aspect of this was elaborated on at all.
120
posted on
10/23/2006 3:58:23 PM PDT
by
gidget7
(Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-124 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson