Posted on 08/14/2010 4:09:18 AM PDT by GonzoII
I implied that I agree, and that it was a head rush on my side that it was pretty much dead on right...
See, not as funny (which is what I intended) when I had to explain it...hehehe, no harm or foul...;-)
We cool???
Sandy01 can’t answer you. She was Zotted in post 293 for pushing the homosexual agenda.
White trash homosexuals as a group pick our pockets by being a threat to public health and costing healthcare billions by being the #1 vector for the spread of infectious disease. See CDC stats on said issue.
Call it what you want... you are placing judgement on a group of people based on nothing but emotion.
Emotion? No, psychological illness, health issues - facts and evidence.
Your ex-husband sounds like someone who is far more in touch with the amoral culture than homosexuals.
Amoral culture and homosexual behavior overlap quite a bit... Homosexuals have a much higher rate of "domestic violence" than the general public, my dear. You are quite uninformed.
The point is you can’t have sodomy laws on the books and not have divorce and adultry laws on the books. The Conservatives that feel that way are hypocrities and should be shown as such.
Conservatives are not hypocrities (nor hypocritters) for wanting sodomy laws on the books as they have been throughout history, to keep dangerous, unhealthy and psychologically ill behavior out of the public and away from children (and horses).
There are too many so called Conservatives that attacking this from the immoral standpoint and should be focused on the legal standpoint of these issues.
How about public health issues? Just who is giving who AIDS? And who is paying for it? And why are mentally ill people allowed to teach our children about sodomy in public schools? I think that is a bona fide legal issue.
If you would go back to my original posts you will find that I said the will of the people should be treated as absoulte and I think the use of the Right to Privacy and Equal Protection Clause should not be used to get rid of abortion and to allow gay marriage. While there are laws that are truely incompatible with the Constitution these are two issues that are not.
I have no clue what you are trying to say here.
What I was saying though is that it’s hypocrticial to pick and choose which sins you want to make against the law and which ones you do not.
It's not me, it's Mother Nature.
If you want to follow Biblical law to enforce homosexuality laws that you have to follow Biblical law for all of it.
I have not brought up the Bible, I am bringing up the laws of nature and history.
I sure think it would be fun to round up everyone who bears false witness though don’t you think?
Try leaving the Bible out of the discussion and stick to health issues, the Constitution, and natural law. BTW I am a Hindu so if you'd like to discuss the Manu Samhita, I'm game!
The judge kicked it to the curb. In essence, agreed with you. In so many words stated as fact that morality premised upon institutional tradition and Christianity was nonsense, myth fairy tale... Further, that law devoid of morality was king -that there is no higher authority than the law of man...
I would suggest this proves my point -no?
This ruling if carried out fully would in essence support the notion that unalienable rights endowed the people from the Creator was nonsense, myth fairy tale...
Do you not see this?
Please read the statements from homosexual activists below. They state, in their own words, why they want homosexual “same sex” marriage. Civil unions are not their goal. Destruction of society is their stated goal.
Don’t bother to respond to me until you read all their comments below. Sorry I cut off the year to the first one at some point, it’s around the same time frame as the others, I think it’s 2005.
BTW, I use the word “gay” in its standard English meaning which is “happy” and “carefree”, not in the corrupt meaning of “those who practice same sex sodomy”.
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.]
Pedophiles don’t come to church and demand that their sin be accepted and expunged from what constitutes sin. Homosexuals do. You can just as easily make the same argument for pedophilia of which a great proportion of homosexuals seek to practice when they can get away with it.
I kind of thought that was what you were saying. It’s hard to interpret comments at times.
No problems here.
“The judge kicked it to the curb. In essence, agreed with you.”
Christianity had no seat at the table, that’s why he was able to do that.
“I would suggest this proves my point -no? “
No it doesn’t prove your point. If your point is that Christianity should have a seat at the table, and it does not, as demonstrated by the ruling in California, how does that prove your point?
“This ruling if carried out fully would in essence support the notion that unalienable rights endowed the people from the Creator was nonsense, myth fairy tale... Do you not see this? “
Of course I see it. A tyrannical judge overturned the will of the people - a particular position of traditional moral values - BECAUSE Christianity had no standing, no seat at the table. Not just for this ruling, but for this judges’ nomination and confirmation.
So - if you think Christianity had/has a seat at the table - Where is it?
If you think Christianity should have a seat at the table, how does it get a seat at the table, given that at present the Government is completely deaf to Christian traditions and moral values that, in this case, a majority of voters obviously hold.
Christianity utterly failed to limit government.
How does Christianity get a seat back as a lodestone for the governance of this country?
How?
Don’t dance around the issue - exactly how does Christianity get a seat?
There is only one way - limit government. Limit it - by doing so reduce its size drastically.
If you don’t see that, as you plainly do not (and you are not alone) then you’ll get to continue complaining and claiming the moral high-ground - while dooming Christianity and the country to certain doom.
Why is this obvious principle so hard to agree with?
Sandy, you don’t get it. Mac and others do not go to church demanding that their sin is not sin. Normal people repent of their sins, they don’t ask God to tell them their sin is not sin.
Here is the rest of the issue: Male homosexuals, being the #1 vector for the spread of infectious disease and antibiotic resistant microbes, are spreading their filthy diseases on the rest of the public and demanding that others accept and pay for it. No thanks, the deviance of fecal consumption (rimming and felching activities) and having anal/oral sex in filthy public bathrooms, bathhouses, and airports is anything but acceptable if public health is of any concern.
Sandy01 got zotted?/ I figured her story about the homosexual adoption/ownership of two kids no “heterosexual wanted” was a fabrication. As a group, homos are the most self-interested deviants on the planet.
That's true. Their life and identity is all about them.
So you think homosexual marriage is OK, eh?
Oh?
Somebody else who needs to see the good clean wholesome family fun of the Folsom Street Fair?
You now want to dance to a tune that I consider a waste of time.
I will make it simple for you. Christianity already has a seat at the table -that thing called the Constitution guarantees such.
How did Christianity get a seat at the table? --That thing called a revolution...
This is but one judge. The legal and political battle is far from over -regardless, your need to wave the white flag for Christinity...
I simply suggest you stick the flagpole of the white flag you wish to wave on my behalf where the sun does not shine...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way DUDE...
“Lead, follow, or get out of the way DUDE...”
Ha!...they’re pulling posts now. I’m impressed that you actually remembered your post (minus the naughty bits).
So we’ll just have to agree to disagree. You want to do nothing, and claim moral superiority, I want to reduce size and scope of government.
It is not as black or white as you imply. You characterize my position incorrectly. As I stated prior we agree on limiting government. Our disagreement is on the legitimate participation of morality/Christianity in the struggle to reclaim legitimate governance...
You need to get it out of your head that those who employ Christianity as a foundation are irrelevant or impotent players. These people and those like them that you dismiss founded our nation... You should welcome and embrace your Christian brothers in arms...
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.