Posted on 02/10/2011 6:25:57 AM PST by Notary Sojac
We need power moved back to the states. It’s easier to get the social moral fabric we want that way.
So, you're pro-choice by state?
The Constitution already prohibits abortion, we just need to educate the people about what it already says.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
It wasn’t a personal attack. It was pointing out the way that leftists box social conservatives in. Conservatives attempting to federalize our moral belief set sets us up for that exact line.
The only way to actually achieve the goal is to devolve the powers to the states. I am interested in results, not feelings. I don’t want to go to my maker telling him, “god I tried, but I was too stupid to follow the way that I could accomplish your will.”
in my opinion, there is a huge world of folks who are spiritual mush right now. I’m talking outside the us. Over the next 15 years, they are going to have a huge leap forward economically, and we need to be focused as Christians on How to win those folks. Arguing against gays being able to transfer their assets the same as everyone else, and having folks talking about fags and queers on these boards is a drop in the bucket sideshow. But there’s a reason the bearded lady has a job at the carnival.
a. the owner of FR??
b. one of the moderators??
c. the official arbiter (other than in your own mind) of who is and is not a conservative??
d. none of the above??
Nope. I just call pro-homosexual trolling like I see it. If Jim or the moderators ask me to stop, I'll stop.
Free Republic is a CONSERVATIVE, PRO-LIFE, PRO-MORALITY forum, it's not the cesspool that you and your ilk would have it be.
If she keeps talking like this, she’ll have less of a chance of winning a Republican primary than a general election. And, given her poll numbers in a general election, that is saying something.
That's very much open to debate. I tend to the view expressed in the Republican party platform:
We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
but it’s very upsetting to me that gays are allowed to be called such things. Sorry, but it is wrong and offensive. And beneath a G-dfearing site.
God did worse than call them names.
What some of them are trying to do is unconscionable. Forcing the majority to accept and condone immoral behavior is not acceptable. People react angrily and rightfully so. I know this hurts you and I wish it were different but it's not.
I’m pro life everywhere. What do we have right now? Pro choice everywhere.
How do we get to where I want us to be? One state at a time.
Those states who opt for moral decay will fail and see the light. Or we can go your way and just all fail collectively. Many more will die, but hey we tried right?
What does allowing radical homosexuals seeking to promote homosexuality to have influence within the conservative movement have to do with free speech? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
The only thing Palin had going for her was that she was a principled conservative. Now, that doesn't even appear to be true.
“The One” is a title for God.
Not for Palin.
In their dreams. Helen Thomas (no pix please) will win the Miss Universe contest before that happens.
Nonsense, you suggested that it should be left to the states.
How do we get to where I want us to be? One state at a time.
Those states who opt for moral decay will fail and see the light. Or we can go your way and just all fail collectively. Many more will die, but hey we tried right?
You are endorsing the EXACT SAME policy that was a dismal failure with slavery.
The outcome of trying it on abortion would be MUCH WORSE.
Why is everyone assuming Palin was telling the SocCons to accept a pro-gay agenda?
I listened to what she said and I understand it to mean that she is not an exclusionist but I also took her words to mean that sure Goproud can come and debate and she doesn’t believe in boycotting because then the social conservatives won’t have a voice representing them (she said that much in her CBN interview) BUT that doesn’t mean they will win the debate.
I also took her statement about priorities to be more of a warning shot to the Goproud group by implying that their “issue” is not priority and they should drop it because our Country’s debt, jobs, freedom, national security etc.... is priority one.
Why do people assume she was telling the social cons to cool it? I took it that she was telling the Goproud group to cool it. I took her response to be that if Goproud thinks they are going to make their issue central to the 2012 campaign they are fools. Our country has bigger more important issues at hand than the gay issue of the month for GoProud.
I think her past statements strongly supporting the sancity of marriage, her living her values etc... support my interpretation much better than people thinking she was moving left. GoProud can try and claim her support but that is not what she said.
Yes, Palin has a libertarian streak but it is not on social issues. She does think those battles belong on the state level but she is still very much a social conservative.
Gosh, the poor woman cannot get a break. Everyone assumes the worst from her instead of looking at her record, past statements, views etc...
They aren't just attending. GOProud is a sponsor of the event and they are being embraced by certain elements of the "conservative" movement despite the fact it exists primarily to promote a homosexual political agenda.
A truly misused Scripture. That passage isn't about adultery it's about hypocrites.
The law was that both the man and the woman had to be judged together. AND they had to be caught in the act. There had to be witnesses. If you accused someone and the law wasn't followed, you suffered their punishment. Stoning to death. Had ONE Pharisee cast a stone they could also be stoned to death.
The Pharisees were trying to set up Jesus but didn't follow the law. The Scripture states that the oldest dropped their stones first because THEY knew the law. And they knew the punishment.
Jesus then told the woman "Go. And sin no more." It was NEVER about adultery.
You don’t seem to have much confidence that the majority of Americans are pro-life.
Unlike trolls like you, I understand that our right to life comes from GOD and is not subject to a majority vote.
Not scary. The rank and file here are Bible-believing evangelical Christians--and this website reflects that. It's more "Christian Conservative" than "conservative." Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's definitely not a big tent around here.
Because it takes TWO to commit adultery. No one else would come forward. He chose not to punish the woman and let the other guilty party go free.
Palin will be responsible for legislation that will effect the moral foundation of our country. If she wants to go on a mission to the Castro district of San Franswishco to "save souls", then she shouldn't be in politics.
Romans 13; try reading it sometime.
Gosh, the poor woman cannot get a break. Everyone assumes the worst from her instead of looking at her record, past statements, views etc...
Sarah Palin is a Constitutionalist but also a libertarian and a social conservative.
______________________________________
Right. And Obama is a good Muslim man with strong Christian values.
You need a basic refresher course in Politics 101.
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.