Posted on 08/14/2010 4:09:18 AM PDT by GonzoII
State recognized gay unions would accomplish most of what you want. But a marriage license should be reserved to a man and a woman, since that’s what marriage is.
I’m using an example.
If you cannot understand that concept, this is NOT the site for you.
Homosexuals are hedonistic by nature. They define themselves by their sexual activity. That is hedonistic. I don't care what they do. What I care about is being forced to accept it as normal. It is not. What I care about is that schools are forced to teach homosexuality is normal. It is not.
“Can you post me the link to rules that say opposing christian beliefs on the homosexual union argument are not allowed here?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
Fourth paragraph down, second sentence.
But you already showed that you won’t follow links with the link to the Folsom Street Fair.
Even conservatives don’t agree on everything. There is still room for healthy debate..and honestly, I believe that it is healthy to see and hear others viewpoints.
What is the line from the poem about vice? First we pity, then endure, then embrace? You are at the second step.
There is a big difference between recognizing that people who commit even vile sins are God’s children, and saying, “Okay, I guess what they’re doing isn’t worth getting worked up about.”
That is not a logical extension. Queerosexuality is creepy, but it takes place between two consenting adults. Same with bigamy and polygamy (that latter, apparently okay with God of the OT).
Pederasty, bestiality and necrophilia are especially evil because there is the lack of consent.
I'm with Beck and Ann; I could care less what the queers and mormons are doing. We've got bigger fish to fry.
What does that have to do with my using an example that the gay apologist troll couldn’t understand?
This is fear mongering at it’s best. WE have laws protecting children and animals.
All sinners are “spirituall diseased.” The worst are those who judge others without recognizing that fact with deep humility.
Your sinning continues as do your rights. Yet you sit on your lofty perch of piousness and judge other sinners, throwing stones of legality at gays in denying them the same STATE benefits that you, as an equal sinner, continue to have.I refuse to hurl a stone at them. I am just as guilty as they are.
Yes, it IS a logial extension.
Because you are “Oppressing” the bigamists, polygamists, Beastility fetishists, etc etc etc by not letting them marry multiple times or marry their pets.
“Oppression” is the same argument used by the gays.
So the example still apllies.
I mixed it up. It’s first endure, then pity, then embrace. You are at the second step, at least. Maybe the third.
Not all people will walk the narrow path. Do we punish them all legally so we make sure they NEVER see the love Christ offers. That will keep them off the path for sure!
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Glenn missed the point. He objected the idea of a gay bar near his place of worship. How is he going to feel if his church and others were forced to marry gay people?
Maybe I’m a little confused here, help me out.
When you go in to get a marriage license, are you asked if you are gay or straight? I don’t recall, nor can I find that question being asked on any marriage license. I’m sure you would agree that currently, this question is not asked, correct?
There are restrictions on marriage that apply to all.
You can’t marry someone under a certain age.
You can’t marry someone who is already married.
You can’t marry someone who is a close relation (brother, sister, mother, father, cousin, etc).
You can’t marry someone of the same gender.
These rules apply equally to all and are completely blind to one’s sexual orientation. These rules don’t ask you what will ‘make you happy’, or ‘who do you love’; they are simply definitions of this specific contract.
How are these rules discriminatory against homosexuals when they are completely blind to one’s sexual orientation? They don’t say ‘you are gay so you can’t get married’. A gay person can get married just like a straight person- they just have the same rules as everyone else. No matter what a straight person, for example, may feel about another married person, he or she can’t marry that person. A straight person can’t marry someone of the same gender, for example, if they wanted some sort of benefit.
The rules are blind towards sexual orientation.
Oh, so it’s FEAR MONGERING?
Heh, really?
First they said they weren’t going to ban all guns, they were only going to ban ‘certain’ guns.
Then Feinstein and her crew immediately set about to try to ban.. all guns.
If you think that kind of “one toe in the door” action wouldn’t happen in any other avenue, then you’re deluded.
It would be better to drop idolization of paid pundits.
Exactly.
Conservatives should think on their own, and analyze exactly what these “Conservative” pundits actually stand for.
When the so-called “Conservative” pundits starting attacking Birthers....I knew something was totally wrong.
I really feel for those who joined Beck’s “9/12” group, thinking it was Conservative. It is not.
Do you recognize the reference in that phrase?
I used it for a couple of specific, deliberate reasons.
Cheers!
I also see that you are ignoring the link to FR mission statement.
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.