Posted on 12/06/2006 9:18:37 AM PST by areafiftyone
Some yes, some no. Since this place has been a "big tent" in the past, it's hard to tell what brand of conservatism will be served up by individual posters day-to-day.
That is after the fact not while both are together and if a woman wants to be impregnated by somebody's elses sperm while married to a man instead of adopting the to me is a completely selfish act
ooooooh yes you do- and you've got it- nothign you can do and nothign you can say will get me to stop forgiving you- so put that in your pipe and smoke it
Believe me, I understand and I agree. But there are so many (effectively) parentless children out there, that I would think that 2 mothers are better than the foster care system.
One man's non sequitur is another man's wisdom.
In your first tirade about the child hopefully changing the "disordered" mother's behavior, I responded about the value of a loving home. To that you responded that it would be better for the child to have a father and mother, which of course was a complete non sequitur. Suggestion: Don't start using them and you needn't worry about others responding similarly.
"Not traditional"? Is that the PC term for disordered/dysfunctional/harmful to the child?
No, it's the PC term for a loving, non traditional family...and hopefully one that does not preach hate.
There's a reason the "traditional" family achieved that status--because it is the absolute BEST model for raising children.
Yes, indeed. I miss Ozzie and Harriet and Father Knows Best. But that was television, and it tended to ignore the millions upon millions of "disordered", single parent families, and the millions of unadopted children who could do a lot worse than a home with Mary Cheney. But for many here, those issues are far less important than the horrible thought of two loving women either adopting, or in this case giving birth to a child. That is the real issue, and it has nothing at all to do with the child, and everything to do with trying to force biblical moral philosophy on everyone else.
A society that discards the "traditional" family for a panoply of non-traditional, feel-good junk is one that's headed for the dung-heap of history.
Got a link to that? Never mind.
[got a link to that?]
Yes www. Genesis 19: 1-25 . com
What I really want to do is to tell you is that you misspelled misogynist, but I can't bring myself to do it. In any case, I'm not at all sure about your racial or gender issues.
Look, I know you think that the sodomite/lesbo lifestyle is the moral equivalent of the traditional two parent family.
Really? I must have missed writing that. But I'm sure you're keeping track. Where did I say that?
I consider that opinion to ill-informed, vacuous, and moronic and I intend to say so every time the subject comes up.
Yes, I know. You've been doing it for a while now. And as I recall, you're not above using lies and misinformation (Parker) to ensure we are all made aware of how important morality is to you.
If that bothers you, too bad. Maybe someday your allies in the government can pass a law that will put "hateful" people like me in jail.
Don't you have that one backwards? Aren't you the one who wants to do the "jailing"?
Which part of the Bill of Rights is that covered in...outside of your freedom to say it?
Bill of rights? Lol- take it easy fella- you questioned the other fella for stating that society was going in the dumper because we've abandoned morals and celebraste decadence now- You aksed for a link backing that up- I gave it to you- NOONE is asserting anything on anyone here- Just proving hte point that the other fella had it exactly right- God DOES NOT approve of what we are becomming, and His rights trump our rights & we may just find out one day VERY soon that He will exact judgement- so- celebrate decadence while you can- it will be a short lived 'liberty' for you- http://sacredscoop.com
I like your attitude.
I wonder if he will pay child support?
What exactly does the MSM think this story proves?
Yes, a woman can get pregnant without being in a relationship with a man, and without being hetrerosexual.
Yes, females do pair up, get jiggy, and pretend to be married.
All of these are unwise, unnatural, unhealthy, and ungodly.
So what?
Actually that's not exactly what he said, but hey, who's counting?
Just proving hte point that the other fella had it exactly right- God DOES NOT approve of what we are becomming, and His rights trump our rights & we may just find out one day VERY soon that He will exact judgement- so- celebrate decadence while you can- it will be a short lived 'liberty' for you- http://sacredscoop.com
Wow. Sounds like you got some inside skinny here for us. I won't ask you where you got it from, cause I'm sure it's pretty secret. We've had enough leaks lately out of the government. We sure don't want any out of FR... Well, at least you and the Ahmadinejad have something in common. You both know God is pretty unhappy with the world. With all due respect however, there are a lot of very good people, Christians as well as others who seem to think that God is a tad more tolerant of differences than many here give Him credit for.
As for the issue of this thread, hope you don't mind, but I'd kinda like to let the Constitution and the laws of the land decide these issues. I hope you can appreciate that?
Exactly. The MSM is trying to start some trouble as usual.
Exactly. The MSM is trying to start some trouble as usual.
Yup you're right- God is tolorant of people, and so aren't Christians- We beleive it is EVERY person's right to sin the sins of their choice, it's their Sin however that will be judged- Where did I get the skinny on this? I listed the link www. Genesis 19: 1-25 .com and before you go on about 'what makes their sin worse than any other sin?" # 1 homosexuality was one of only a VERY few that God called an abomination. Now, spin that however ya like, but it's still an abomination and will be judged as such- BUT this isn't even the point- it's whether or not the person has accepted Christ as Saviour- If they haven't, and generally, people that choose the sin of homosexuality don't choose to accept Christ's sacrifice for their sins, then they'll be judged on it.- nuff said really- We're not against anyone sinning- We CAN however note that indulgences in decadence and ignoring God are what is driving this once great nation into the dumper just as Soddom was.
That may or may not be the case, but since no one I have ever known has actually spoken with the Creator, you can understand the reluctance of some of us to simply accept that from you. Too, many wonder that God would refer to his creations as "abominations". But we all have our beliefs, none of which trump anyone else's. That's the best spin I can put on it.
it's whether or not the person has accepted Christ as Saviour- If they haven't, and generally, people that choose the sin of homosexuality don't choose to accept Christ's sacrifice for their sins, then they'll be judged on it.-
Again, I'm sure you can understand how many of us, knowing that God created this wondrous universe of billion of galaxies, most likely with some type of life throughout them, would "need" such worship from us. What does that do for God? If a human demanded such homage, wouldn't we believe he was feeding his ego through the exercise of power? But I respect your beliefs as well as those of all others who don't attempt to impose them on me.
Take care.
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.