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 next last
To: gonzo
oh, dear me! sick, twisted, and brilliant.
41 posted on 11/29/2003 10:27:35 PM PST by King Prout (...he took a face from the ancient gallery, then he... walked on down the hall....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WhoisAlanGreenspan?
I don't apologize or make up with my wife because of a legal "marrage" or because I'm a christian.

Big mistake. Do it in the name of God and you'll have a lot less problems.

I think like Doug's picking on fondness for goats, saying it's a deliberate attack on christianity muddles the debate and weakens our side's argument.

It's a valid point, that I've used myself. It does put the issue in perspective and show how ridiculous gay-marriage is. Animal "love" is a fact of life just like homosexual, but the mere presense of an a$$-itch does not entitle someone (or something) to the place reserved for real marriage.
42 posted on 11/29/2003 10:47:23 PM PST by singsong (Demoralization kils first the civilization and THEN the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
KEYWORDS: BAAAAAAA; BOWWOW; HEHAW; HOMOSEXUALAGENDA; HOMOSEXUALVICE; MARRIAGE; MEOW; MOOOOOOOO; OINK; PERVERSION; QUACK; SAMESEX;

ROFLMAO

43 posted on 11/29/2003 11:01:47 PM PST by Diddley (Free Republic: An aboveground forum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diddley
Some people added a few to the original keywords.
44 posted on 11/29/2003 11:30:13 PM PST by doug from upland (Hillary didn't hire Pelicano.......my butt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Oh. I see now.

But it's still funny.
45 posted on 11/29/2003 11:43:40 PM PST by Diddley (Free Republic: An aboveground forum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
polygamists are excited at the prospects.

Big surprise. But there are even fewer of them than gays. I can think of one legal, secular reason to disallow polygamy - death or divorce would create a nightmare for the parties to such a marriage WRT property, disposition of children, etc.

There are also those in the homosexual circles who want the age of consent legalized.

Wha? If you're talking about lowering age-of-consent laws, NAMBLA is a red herring IMO. They have, what, 10 members in the USA? They can't even have a damned website in this country, let alone get a law passed. Those homosexuals who aren't whackos but do want a re-examination of age of consent laws are on about the disparity between the consent age for gays & heterosexuals; there still remain in many states higher ages of consent for homosexuals than heterosexuals.

It would make all sorts of horror stories legal.

Or not. Fearmongering is dishonest and unnecessary.

Snidely

46 posted on 11/30/2003 12:20:45 AM PST by Snidely Whiplash (Best not to post after you've been down at the pub...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Quote of the Day by MissAmericanPie
47 posted on 11/30/2003 12:34:41 AM PST by RJayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
While the waters are muddy enough, what about the PETA types? They practically exhalt animals over humans now
And they have absolutely nothing to do with this gay marriage business. Idiots, maybe, but really not germane to the issue.

IMHO, this is about tying down survivor's benefits and tapping into healthcare plans more than emotional bonding.

Got it in one, IMO. Those homosexuals who are already in long-term relationships aren't going to have the relationships themselves materially affected. It's largely about medical rights, and suchlike as you mentioned. I guess I can see where they're coming from, more or less...if I'm living long-term with a woman and want to make it honest, I head w/ her down to the courthouse - $25 and a blood test later, we're hitched, with all the rights pertaining thereto.

Call it "marriage" and they can "adopt" other gays and increase the drain on employers' healthcare plans while heterosexuals pick up the tab.

What - do gays not have to pay for their insurance? And are insurers really going to start granting coverage wholesale, without regard for pre-existing conditions or poor medical history? They sure as heck aren't now...

And really, if they're only 1% of the population, as many here claim, how much of a drain could they really put on the system?

Snidely

48 posted on 11/30/2003 12:39:05 AM PST by Snidely Whiplash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Snidely Whiplash
I>What - do gays not have to pay for their insurance?

Employer group plans, especially government employees, often provided as part of the compensation package. Are spouses 'risk assessed'? Dependants? I guess it depends on the plan.

Now that AIDS/HIV drugs are so much more effective these people live longer, (as long as they see the doctor lots and stay on the meds)--I don't know. Marry one, adopt two, you now have 4 on the plan, could run a million or so. You can't fire them because they are gay.

A multitude of other medical conditions arise from putting things where the body was not designed for them to go. Most of these conditions would be far more unlikely in a non-gay group. They develop over time, may not be readily apparent, and, if assessed as part of the pool's risk, will cause an increase in insurance rates for everyone in the pool.

If there are 100,000 employees, the difference might not be so great. With a smaller company group, I can see where the entire group might become uninsurable for one ersatz couple's coupling.

49 posted on 11/30/2003 1:13:32 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (GOATS!? (Just say naaaaaaaah!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: gonzo
Damn, such a good song. I know the lady that sang backup on the original by Percy when he was recording at Muscle Shoals. I don't think Percy would sing this version though.
50 posted on 11/30/2003 5:58:04 AM PST by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug; doug from upland
Maybe HERE!!...............FRegards
51 posted on 11/30/2003 8:18:19 AM 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 50 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
"What next?"

Here's the real problem in my mind. With the lowering of the age of control, i.e., girls receiving birth control, or abortions at 14 years without the knowledge of the parent or even the legality of being present at the act, then the law is lowering the legal age of consent to achowledging the legitimacy of man/boy woman/girl unions. And since the New Hampshire State Supreme Court has established a presidence that same sex unions are not sexual, then that opens the door to any possible union, period. So, any pediaphyle just got carte blanc, and the law protects them.

"I accept that most homosexuals, particularly males, are born the way they are. It is not their fault or their choice. Something has gone wrong which prevents them from being able to be attracted to the opposite sex. At times, it must be incredibly difficult for them. Who would choose that path in life?"

I do not accept that homosexual behavior is not a learned behavior, just like how you tie a tie, or lace your shoes. There is no proof scientifically, only guesses. The only difference is that the act of consumation of it is based upon physical sexual completion, that has been defined as pleasure, not for reproduction. It is their choice, so that's who chooses that life. They are quite happy in it, otherwise they would change.

Red

52 posted on 11/30/2003 8:35:55 AM PST by Redwood71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
Must be a relative of X42, from the town of Pumpkin.
53 posted on 11/30/2003 10:31:16 AM PST by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug; doug from upland; King Prout
HERE, UNZIPPED!...
54 posted on 11/30/2003 10:33:40 AM 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 51 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug; doug from upland; King Prout
Howsabout other animals?...............FRegards
55 posted on 11/30/2003 10:39:58 AM 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 54 | View Replies]

To: WhoisAlanGreenspan?
"I think ---saying it's a deliberate attack on christianity muddles the debate and weakens our side's argument."

Christianity, (and religion in general), has the most to lose by this outrageous, twisted redefinition of marriage. Your thinking is shallow, and weak. What has always kept marriages together are the vows promised at the wedding ceremony, the children that need to be raised and cared for, the recognition that Jesus said marriage is indisolvable except for adultery, and the well known fact that marriage is the basic institution and the glue that holds together all civilized societies. Human "love" waxes and wanes and is as fickle as the weather, (witness the 52% divorce rate since the first attack on marriage that arrived under the banner of "no-fault divorce").

The ancient and modern purposes of marriage are to provide vows and a contract which help protect a betrothed man and woman from straying from each other, to maintain unity and cohesion, to protect the children of the marriage, and to provide basic rules and structure for the institution of marriage in a civilized society.

Any sexual relationship between two males or two females is nothing but a filthy, disgusting, debauchery of nature and of God's obvious plan for His creation to love and honor one another and to procreate the human species on earth. Any "marriage" of two homosexual perverts is not a marriage, nor will it ever be - regardless of what four liberal, pinko scumbags sitting on the Mass. Supreme Court may have invented.

56 posted on 11/30/2003 10:58:51 AM PST by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Succint, no fluff, to the point, and as well said as I've ever read on the subject... very good job...

Why! indeed....

57 posted on 11/30/2003 11:46:23 AM PST by hosepipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gonzo
.....so then the sailor turns to the guy seated next to him and says,"Have you ever seen any thing like this?"
The guy says, "Oh this is nothing, you should have been here last week to see this sailor **** a chicken."
58 posted on 11/30/2003 11:53:30 AM PST by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: gonzo
oh
dear
lord
!
59 posted on 11/30/2003 12:07:00 PM PST by King Prout (...he took a face from the ancient gallery, then he... walked on down the hall....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: gonzo
seen Billy Connoly's HBO special?
"Baaaaa!" "Oh, I love it when you talk dirrrrty!"
60 posted on 11/30/2003 12:09:37 PM PST by King Prout (...he took a face from the ancient gallery, then he... walked on down the hall....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


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

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