Posted on 02/09/2006 12:55:09 PM PST by Terriergal
hey I was wondering if you were still around!
Of course, but they're trying to make the rest of have to legally pay for their unhealthy choices... and then of course (as if it wasn't already happening) be able to adopt kids without any hassle whatsoever.
Actually, that article on the the Evangelical Climate Initiative says that although Rick Warren joined the campaign, Dobson refused to.
Where is the statement of the refutation?
Hi, TerrierG! I'm here but not too much - had to give my pinglists to others for a while. Planning a "rant" in a while....
(Just got a lot of other things on my plate right now.)
“but there are some questions that ought to be answered... in 1989, she [Miers] answered a poll done by a gay rights organization and asked if she believed in gay rights... well, you know what, I do... I don’t believe that homosexuals should be denied a job... I don’t believe that they should not be able to buy a house... I don’t believe that they should not have the same rights everybody else does... I just don’t believe that there should be special rights given to homosexuals that are not given to anybody else…”
I agree with Dr. Dobson. Homosexuals already have equal rights and should not be given special rights. Those who do not believe that homosexuals should not have the right to buy a house, or hold a job, or have free speech, or the right to bear arms are those who would deny anyone who offends them the rights that God has granted each individual.
This legislation would give "non-homosexuals" the same rights that "homosexuals" would be getting as proposed by another legislator in Colorado. This proposal would allow non-homosexual domestic partners to have the same rights as homosexual domestic partners.
To say that this is somehow endorsing homosexual rights is twisting and obscuring the truth into a shallow lie. This is forcing the issue of equality back upon the homosexual community by saying, "No! You cannot have special rights. You can have equal rights with everyone else."
..But it is a parachurch organization!
BTW I found online an apology to the gay community issued by the co-founder, of FOF, Gil Alexander-Moegerle (why on earth is his name hyphenated???)
http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/03/1997_focus_on_t.html
(that's a site, as far as I can tell, to try and debunk the idea that gays can change)
Maybe he had more influence than he thought, before he left. Or maybe a ton of lukewarm CINO's have infiltrated the ranks and deceived anyone left that actually had an idea what the Bible says about these things.
The article you sited said Dobson did NOT sign it.
Me too.. except that doesn't seem to be what this bill does. I can't cover my 'friend' on my insurance, etc... only my 'domestic partner/spouse.' I also don't think that heterosexual couples not married should be able to have each other on their insurance policies.
oh whoops - thanks for catching that.
Besides it's drawbacks, I can see some benefits from a bill such as this one.
Just asked to have that pulled.
such as?
yeah sorry... i got too excited about that. I asked the mods to pull that post.
Ok, the Colorado legislature is going to pass a "domestic partners" bill. Take that as a given, as that is the what the political climate is heading towards right now.
Now, accepting this as fact (although I would vote against it personally), there are now two proposals before the legislature. The first proposal specifically give "domestic partner" rights to only homosexuals. The second proposal gives the "domestic partner" rights to all non-married domestic partners.
Given the first fact, that one of these proposals is going to pass, I would choose the second proposal. Not to give rights to homosexuals, but to prevent homosexuals from getting special rights.
This is being twisted to say that it is giving special rights to homosexuals.
It'll do nicely for the fervent Christian-bashers on this forum, though.
You had to sign a form that excluded members who follow the Papacy.
Really, I would very much like to see the evidence of that.
"such as?"
I've often wondered why I had to be related to someone by marriage to buy insurance for them. I always thought it should be Employee +1, Employee +2, etc. as far as the rates go. Why do they care who is covered?
Just a thought.
Another good example, thanks.
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.