Posted on 11/05/2008 10:34:34 PM PST by chrispycsuf
They are protesting in the streets of Hollywood right now! Fox 11 (local) is showing images of insane protesters against the passage of Prop 8, which banned same sex marriage.
Exactly. Live by the minority vote, die by the minority vote.
you don’t get it about them
well first off they are trying to get the state to recognise their pervertedness.
think about it, do you really think it is normal for two men ton be sleeping and having sex and what they do
now
they also want to be recognised about marriage, then it leads to adoption then it leads to teaching it in schools
do you think it is right that kids aged 5 should be reading books about a boy meeting a boy and falling in love then getting married
that is what happens in MA, to them it is not about rights it is forcing their perverted sexual minds onto others
look how many act , look their their freak parades
If you still do not get it then I would assume you are young and have been brought and brainwashed with this or you know people who are homosexuals openly and they tell you that they just want to be happy
if the latter then that is what they do so folks like you think ah well so what no biggie
if they went back into their bedrooms and stopped going on about their sexual pervertedness then all this would not be an issue and no one would be bothered about them but right now they are out in the open letting everyone know about their views and agenda
also they want this kind of marriage to be legal well should we let men have 4 wives, should be let a woman marry her daughter
hey remember it is in their home, it is their privacy, it is their right they love each other
you see where does it stop, every argument used by these homosexuals will and can be used for other weird marriages
exactly what I have bee saying here in FL
if these homo’s want to much to have their sham marriage then move out of FL or CA sand go to live in MA where the radicals agenda was forced on the people there, where the legislature denied the people the right to vote
if they want this so much just move
it really is that easy
bye bye from FL we’ll have key west back thanks
Oh well.
Let them make themselves look foolish.
I'm sure many of you won't agree or see the point, but many of these folks don't get 'married' because they dont want it on a public record. If we get a nutty president who wants to start his own hitler youth they dont want a public record of where to come pick them up similar to registering jews so they could take them to the gas chamber.
That's what he said.
Ba-dump-bump.
‘An officer called it “peaceful”’
Errrr, sorry, that wasn’t an actual officer, it was one of the Village People...
(Snarky non-PC humor...)
“How many of the protesters are married?”
How many of the protesters even believe in marriage?
WE WANT PIE, WE WANT IT NOW!
or bush, or wieners or something
My thoughts, to be gentle, is that as a professed Christian you need to go back and study basic Bible doctrine. GOD Himself created the institution of marriage and made it explicitly clear that it is to be between a man and a woman. If society is not going to go by GOD's absolute truth definition of marriage, then society alternatively must by definition embrace moral relativity that says that anything goes because all ways are equally right and there is no wrong, so you can have man and man, woman and woman, man and dog, woman and cat, man-woman-man, woman-man-woman, ad infinitum.
Genesis 2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [i] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame....
Thanks for that well-reasoned reply- I am going to save it.
Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay “marriage.”
Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.
The argument that current marriage laws “discriminate” against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.
All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?
While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.
But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.
The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.
The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined — and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?
Despite heavy television advertising in California for “gay marriage,” showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil-rights marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.
Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing — riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.
Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.
Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.
None of us has a right to other people's approval.
And last, but not least, as Catholics (you and I), we're obligated to understand our faith. The Catholic Church is very clear on the fact that there are several non-negotiables which we must not support; abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell result, euthanasia (and I can't remember the last one).
Go to any orthodox Catholic website and you can find more info. A good forum is Catholic Forums.
Yes, it was excellent.
hahahaha
And our side celebrates on YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bwoeNYZP_Q
So people keep saying. But what about hetero couples that don't have children. Nobody objects to their being married. They don't see the primary purpose as having children.
The fact is, that's wrong. The legal status of marriage has nothing to do with children. It is the legal recognition of a common social convention. That two people join into a social unit. Married people have additional legal ties to each other, not to their children.
Maybe, or even probably, but then it will be appealed to the US Supreme Court where the 9th circuit court decision will be overturned.
I remember reading in Dante’s Inferno that those that pursued sexual pleasure are condemned to perpetual intercourse without reaching satisfaction.
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.