Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DO YOU TAKE THIS GOAT TO BE YOUR LAWFULLY WEDDED ......
dfu | 11-2003 | dfu

Posted on 11/29/2003 8:23:34 PM PST by doug from upland

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 last
To: King Prout
That's why ya get 'em at the edge of a cliff, so they push back...

Yes, I know of Connoly........FRegards
61 posted on 11/30/2003 12:40:32 PM PST by gonzo (A mind is a terrible thing,,, and it must be stopped,,,in my lifetime,,, before I kill somebody...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
I accept that most homosexuals, particularly males, are born the way they are.

If the gay movement is correct that being gay is genetic, then they face a future crisis about a generation from now. The causes of all genetic conditions are currently being sorted out. Finding the genetic cause, if there is one, could occur in the next decade. Once the cause is found a genetic test becomes possible. Initially there wouldn't be much reason to use the test. Becoming gay or straight is inevitable so just live with it, right? However many other genetic conditions aren't being accepted as inevitable. Those affected want science to provide genetic treatments. Such science is just now beginning, but everyone agrees gene therapy is an engineering problem that will be solved. If we are to believe the gay movement most of their members spend their early years under the custody of a pair of flaming homophobes, their parents. If those parents could test their budding grandchild factory for gay genes and 'fix' such what would be the effect the population of gay adults? Either the gays should hope their status is a non-genetic choice and plan to defend the validity of that choice or they are going to need an Endangered Gender Act to prohibit testing and therapy for gay genes. Anyone care to bet against the power of the black (free) market in the latter case?

62 posted on 11/30/2003 1:51:57 PM PST by JohnBovenmyer (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer
I have also thought about the future possibility of fixing the problem before someone comes out of the womb.
63 posted on 11/30/2003 2:37:11 PM PST by doug from upland (Hillary didn't hire Pelicano.......my butt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

To: TheCrusader
As a society, culture and country founded on christian values, you may be correct that Christianity has the most to lose "by this outrageous, twisted redefinition of marriage", thankfully you and I know nothing ever ruled by a court of men can change the foundations we choose to lead our own lives by.
I was also trying to point out that in my own experience, and I'll bet its fairly common, I don't imeadiately jump to divorice, a pact made legal or public, or the judgement of God when my marriage relations sour. Not unlike love and faith in God, I can fall back on on those solid pillars in myself and in my choice of a life partner. Knowing full well we'll find a way to smooth the wrinkles out in a compromise we arrive at together is a huge source of power that has proved itself over and over again. Although it may not be exactly the same or as perfect, it may be one of the closest examples we can ever experience to a relationship with God. We stumble, we recover, we move on. We don't let little problems cause life altering doubt. We have faith.

I don't pretend to understand why two men such as those I met the other night live the life they either choose or through some act of biology have stumbled upon in their own life journeys. Like everyone else they will answer for their sins, their lifes good works will be rewarded, and they'll pay the price for judging others when that judgement is better left to the ultimate judge of all we do.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be disgusted, and I'm certainly not endorsing gay "marriage", I'm saying Jesus once took a prostitute in where his own followers were disgusted. That's the kind of Christian example that separates the old testament from the new.

Laying it all out there to be trampled by a half hearted civil rights crusade puts too much at risk with nothing to be gained. Fighting for school prayer, against abortion, or the 10 commandments makes more sense than denying these people a same sex union in the name of Chistian traditions. I say fight to keep them from calling it "marriage", and fight to keep the "basic rules and structure for the institution of marriage in a civilized society" the way it is.

65 posted on 11/30/2003 4:16:33 PM PST by WhoisAlanGreenspan?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: gonzo
When a Man Loves A Chicken....ROTFLMAO
66 posted on 11/30/2003 5:12:49 PM PST by Arpege92
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WhoisAlanGreenspan?
"Fighting for school prayer, against abortion, or the 10 commandments makes more sense than denying these people a same sex union in the name of Chistian traditions."

I'll never understand this reasoning, the Bible condemns homosexuality from pillar to post, from (Leviticus 18:22) to St. Jude's Epistle. Even Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself re-affirmed the eternal punishment for this unnatural act when he declared : "but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom fire and sulphur rained from heaven and destroyed them all--", (Luke 17:29)

Jude's Epistle in the New Testament tells us precisely what the sin of Sodom was: "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 7).

So we now know, for certain, that widespread homosexuality caused entire cities to be destroyed by God. Natural lust is a human condition that helps to populate the world, though the Scripture asks us to control it outside of marriage. Unnatural lust is an abomination to God, and He punishes entire societies that wallow in this twisted act.

67 posted on 11/30/2003 9:22:43 PM PST by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
Well, King, it's still a still a problem in Scotland, but they deal with it............FRegards
68 posted on 11/30/2003 9:37:51 PM PST by gonzo (A mind is a terrible thing,,, and it must be stopped,,,in my lifetime,,, before I kill somebody...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

Comment #69 Removed by Moderator

To: Darkbloom
Apparently, someone doesn't get the point. Rules no longer matter. If a leftist can get a judge to redefine marriage, he can get a judge to redefine anything. Nothing is sacred to them. Duh, get it?
=======================================================

I think you need a review of your elementary education. Now pay attention:

They are rewriting the rules. It doesn't matter if a goat is not a human being.

Got that? Let's try one more time:

They are rewriting the rules. It doesn't matter that a goat is not a human being.

Now as you probably well know, same-sex partners can sign legal documents giving each other Power of Attorney. However, since they are redefining marriage, if they want, you can give Power of Attorney to a goat. Why?

They are rewriting the rules. It doesn't matter that a goat is not a human being.

Human beings can be citizens and vote, regardless of their sexual orientation. Our country has gotten so liberal, in fact, that even women are allowed to vote. However, it should be noted that although goats cannot vote for now, that could change. Do you know why?

They are rewriting the rules. It doesn't matter that a goat is not a human being.

If you wish to not have the possibility of goats recognized as fully equivalent to human beings before the law, then I suggest you lobby your congressman to this effect. We are safe for now, but we all know that the liberals can make the law anything they can get a judge to say it is. Under our system of government,

They are rewriting the rules. It doesn't matter that a goat is not a human being.

70 posted on 12/01/2003 8:04:46 AM PST by doug from upland (Hillary didn't hire Pelicano.......my butt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

Comment #71 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson