other than holding a man at gunpoint, what alternative would these two have? /sarcasm
Posted on 01/21/2004 8:44:05 AM PST by presidio9
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:09:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
but more importantly....do you shower together?...........LOL
I thought it was so over the top that it would be an obvious parody, but since I quoted directly from the article above, I suppose it actually isn't over the top ... anymore. The only way it would have been obviously over the top is if I had pointed out that "my partner" is not the same sex as I am.
Not with the llamas, at least. My cosmetologist says that their conditioner is making me break out...
"What's all this talk I hear about sax and violins on TV?"
other than holding a man at gunpoint, what alternative would these two have? /sarcasm
Right, that's the church run by homosexuals for homosexuals. That's the "church" that hosts homosexual sex classes, up and including fisting, sado-masochism, and the use of electricity while having "sex".
"Gay" activists use doublespeak as though they used "1984" for a study guide. Actually one of the founders of ACT-UP admitted that they studied "Mein Kampf" as a guide for tactics.
Concerning your question, AFAIK the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution requires states to recognize marriages and I believe some other legal contracts made in other states. That's why the "gay" activists are really pushing marriage. Personally though, they have admitted that they don't care about marriage per se. It's merely a tactic to destroy the moral foundation of civilization. I'll post some statements homosexual leaders have made themselves admitting this.
Because they want approval for something they believe to be wrong.
Not really, they want to destroy the moral foundation of society. Here's some quotes:
"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." Michenlangelo Signorile in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994.)
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." [Emphasis added.]
Not with the llamas, at least. My cosmetologist says that their conditioner is making me break out...
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.