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

Skip to comments.

The flip-side of same-sex marriage [Frightening Implications!]
LA Times ^ | May 03rd 2009

Posted on 05/03/2009 1:58:41 PM PDT by Steelfish

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: Steelfish

It’s like we have our own homegrown ‘Taliban’ here in the USofA.. effectively practicing their own form of sharia.. they could care less what the end result is.

To question them is to sign your own death warrant... or will be the equivalent socially, sooner, not later.

Hate crime legislation is only the latest gambit to enact the final acts that will lead to our collective destruction as a society worth much of anything, except to those who issues the edicts and sign the warrants.


21 posted on 05/03/2009 2:46:25 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
The country is deeply divided on same-sex marriage.

IIRC the polls were roughly 60% NO, 30% YES, and 10% NO OPINION. If that's "deeply divided" I'm as centrist as 0bama.

22 posted on 05/03/2009 2:48:58 PM PDT by infidel29 (BARACkarl OBAmarx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

There is no way to allow for same sex marriage without seeing the flood gates open and activists and the ACLU totally swamp this country with lawsuits. Civil Unions just open the door for 14th amendment challenges. This isn’t about religious protections it is about freedom to call what is wrong wrong. Homosexuality is aberrant, there are plenty of researchers that believe this but like with global warming have been bullied into obscurity and near media silence. What we have seen is the political swamping of the debate but we should be heartened by the backlash the marriage issue has caused. These states can be turned. It is not too late but will take hard work.


23 posted on 05/03/2009 3:03:32 PM PDT by Maelstorm (With eyes wide shut)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Yes, the ramifications are quite troublesome and sickening. Once homosexuals are allowed to get married, they can more readily  adopt children, and they have a predilection for adopting males. I feel sorry for these young children not only for being exposed to perversion, but also for falling victim to them. We need to recognize that homosexuality isn't a natural occurrence after all.

Once same-sex marriages are legalized, then homosexual teachings will be institutionalized via the schools and forced upon young minds. Measures will be taken for dissenting against this agenda, and anyone opposing the dominant gay world view will be harassed or even fired from their job. We have seen the extreme intolerance that emanates from these individuals.

There is a domino effect about legalizing homosexual marriage that will affect the fiber of our society, and it's frightening.

24 posted on 05/03/2009 3:14:46 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OpeEdMunkey

I think the lesbians had other choices, but wanted to make a point, and got a judge to go along. Even if the photographers had been the only ones around, I don’t see how the government would be entitled to order them to accept an order...but I’m not a lawyer.


25 posted on 05/03/2009 3:50:44 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gridlock

self-ping for later reading


26 posted on 05/03/2009 3:59:34 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
We need to recognize that homosexuality isn't a natural occurrence after all.

In a few cases it may be.

But then, so are diabetes and spina bifida.

27 posted on 05/03/2009 4:10:07 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
You need to read the whole post. So let me repeat it for you:

"I feel sorry for these young children not only for being exposed to perversion, but also for falling victim to them. We need to recognize that homosexuality isn't a natural occurrence after all."

My comment regarding natural occurrence is with regards to homosexual behavior as a perversion, or in other words, a mental disorder.

The jury is still out as to whether homosexuality is a naturally occurring behavior in a subset of the homosexual community.  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but my point speaks to those who develop the preference (or proclivity) from some mental illness or other mental/emotional defect.

28 posted on 05/03/2009 5:08:57 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul

I saw that.

A few years ago, I was out to breakfast one Saturday morning, and noticed across the room a table with a boy, looking to be around 12 or 13 years old, with two middle-aged women, with short graying hair.

It’s certainly possible that the two women were his mother and her sister, with his father legitimately preoccupied elsewhere, but I somehow doubt that.

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen anyone looking as miserable as that kid. The entire time I was there, he sat there with his hands in his lap, shoulders hunched over, staring at his plate.


29 posted on 05/03/2009 5:28:03 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

Gosh, that’s so sad. If that was indeed a lesbian couple, this boy was probably feeling miserable, robbed of some of the innocence of his youth. So sad.


30 posted on 05/03/2009 5:35:57 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
He wasn't "feeling miserable ... robbed", he was miserable and robbed.
31 posted on 05/03/2009 5:42:16 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Fred Hayek

“I would choose to shut down my business and resort to flipping hambergers at McDonalds - just enough to get by, but pay an absolute minumum in taxes.”

I’ll be flippin’ those burgers right beside you! I absolutely LOATHE the Government we have right now...and it ain’t going to get any less intrusive or any less expensive in our lifetime. Grrrrrr!


32 posted on 05/03/2009 5:43:46 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Catholic Charities in the Boston area got out of the adoption business some while ago because of this stuff.

They were compelled to stop doing their good works because it was “politically incorrect” and the organization was unwilling to compromise their principles which were based on religious beliefs.

The fascists liberals sued them, and the result....less kids find homes, government social workers perpetuate their rackets.

So much for the children and freedom of religion.


33 posted on 05/03/2009 5:44:24 PM PDT by Radix (We seek Liberty......They give us Debt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; OpeEdMunkey

IIRC, New Mexico law requires no discrimination if the business has more than X employees...not sure of the number. This photographer was probably sought out to be made an example of - there were many other photographers available.

NM isn’t the only place with laws like that. It can apply to renting out a basement apartment (not common in NM, but some places have a lot of basements converted to provide students apartments).

In many states, you cannot refuse to work for someone if they agree to pay you. About your only recourse is to do crummy work. If I had been the NM photographer, they’d have had marriage photos from hell!


34 posted on 05/03/2009 5:52:18 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Pruning makes the plant grow bigger!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Thanks, that’s very informative.


35 posted on 05/03/2009 5:56:04 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Stay out of Mexico. Wash your hands. Keep your pigs outdoors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: gridlock

I’ll take it a step further. It now means all the businesses that cater to gay couples, like bed and breakfasts, etc. are also legal obliged to treat heterosexual couples the same. Gay only clubs, resorts, etc. will be a thing of the past. I certainly hope the gay community realizes this. Probably not.


36 posted on 05/03/2009 5:57:31 PM PDT by rintense (Go Israel!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
This is what the NOM (National Organization for Marriage) has been arguing for years.
37 posted on 05/03/2009 7:20:17 PM PDT by It's me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
It's possible to legalize gay marriage without infringing on religious liberty.

Absolutely false. Homosexual "marriage" has nothing to do with what two people want to call themselves - it has everything to do with what OTHERS will be compelled to call them and how OTHERS are forced to change their behavior towards two sodomites. This is a zero-sum rights issue: either religious people will be able to exercise their rights as traditionally known, or the homo-nazis will have their way, trampling religious rights under foot. It can't be both ways.

I am always suspicious that such exemption language is needed in the new radical laws overturning nature anyway. As if the natural order of things needs defending because there is a weakness in this argument. The irrationalists have prevailed in making the un-natural the norm.

38 posted on 05/03/2009 7:43:34 PM PDT by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“It can’t be both ways.”
Absolutely correct. Sodomite “rights” and free exercise of religion are completely at odds. One must give way to the other.


39 posted on 05/03/2009 8:47:44 PM PDT by liberalism is suicide (Communism,fascism-no matter how you slice socialism, its still baloney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Does a Black Photographer have the right to refuse working for the Klan?

Last I checked buisinesses are licenced and have to serve the public without regard to their moral/religious or oterwise beliefs. It’s why the Muslim store clerk has to sell you Bacon.

Now I can’t imagine why the Klan would want a Black photographer at an event and with the exception of certain troublemakers the same would be true for gay events.

Now if you include christian references/symbols into your corporate logo’s why those would normally be expected to be displayed anytime one was conducting buisiness. That should deter all but the most virulent troublemakers from using your services without requiring you to violate the law.


40 posted on 05/04/2009 6:47:40 AM PDT by The_Repugnant_Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 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