Posted on 02/09/2006 12:55:09 PM PST by Terriergal
"Well, we of course don't enforce cohabitation or other anti-promiscuity laws that are on the books.
"
What laws are those? Can you give me examples?
Whoever has the biggest head, wins?
BTW, not totally sure I trust this source. The Denver Post has long had an axe to grind re FoF.
Where has Dobson refuted this? Link, please.
Why does focus on the family have to support either version?
I'm a Christian myself, and ashamed for the majority of lukewarm CINOS that everyone calls Christian.
The freedom to turn reality on its head and demand by judicial fiat and or legislative subterfuge that society recognize homosexual activity as normal or somehow beneficial to society will remain clamped down for eternity...
Because the nuclear family is what benefits society, therefore society has a duty to encourage it.
And from a Christian standpoint, (which doesn't apply to government necessarily) it is the only sanctioned family unit, separable only by death.
The point is not that Colorado is going to pass the bill, the point is that FOF, ostensibly a Christian family organization, is endorsing it.
Especially in the ethics of the paper that printed this distortion of facts...
As I understand these are already legal... next of kin decisions. Next of kin should still have priority over cohabitors.
You know there have been laws on the books for a long time about adultery, sodomy, etc. that don't get enforced.
People with an axe to grind, and those who are looking too hard for specks in other people's eyes, make it hazardous to have an opinion on anything in the Christian world.
I note that you do not disagree with my assesment of the situation, for example, but you are continuing to dig for a "solid" reason for criticizing Focus on the Family.
"You know there have been laws on the books for a long time about adultery, sodomy, etc. that don't get enforced."
There used to be, but they're all pretty much gone. I know of no state that has an active law against adultery, although the UCMJ does have such a regulation. The sodomy laws of virtually every state have been repealed or declared unconstitutional.
So, tell me which laws you are talking about. I'm sorry, but you're incorrect about there being laws against cohabitation.
Most people in this country call themselves Christians, yet know a tiny fraction of what they think they know about the Bible--little more than a few of the more popular childrens' Sunday school stories.
I've been told by a scholar and author on Islam that the vast majority of Muslims are the same way. They are more cultural Muslims than possessors of firsthand Koranic knowledge. This is true in part because the Koran, even with the improvements done to some "translations", is tediously boring and repetitive--a near impossibility to read.
This leaves many easily manipulated as to what it means to be a "good Muslim", but on the other hand there are over a hundred verses in the Koran that teach violence, which are used to radicalize those who want to be considered good Muslims rather easily by those of influence.
Allah was, as far as I can tell, Mohammad's alter-ego, who gave a godly stamp of approval to Mo's edicts. Nothing more.
Allah is easy to relate ---he's like a human bully with unlimited power--much like most people can imagine being if they had the opportunity. As long as you do his bidding and he's in a good mood he'll reward you. If you don't please him, his wrath is terrible.
The teachings are clever in terms of threats of what will happen if you doubt or question Islam, let alone renounce it. It's difficult to get even intelligent, educated followers to take an objective view of the "religion", which reveals it for the cult of repression and eternal death that it is.
I honestly think this is a good thing. I have know many people through the years who were not gay, but who were domestic partners. I'm thinking of several instances of elderly widows I have know who lived together for years and while not related, were closer to each other than any of their own family were. I know a set of brothers, never married, both born with a congenital birth defects which pretty much precluded the typical marriage scenario for both of them. They lived together all of their lives and were closer than many typical married couples. When the older brother who had been able to work and provided most of the household income died a few years ago, the younger was forced to pay the state inheritance tax on his brother's savings. That just did not seem fair to me.
The point being that yes, they can leave wills naming the survivor as their heir, but there are still many legal and financial hoops to jump through that shouldn't be. If they can declare a "domestic partnership" and own community property, they would not need to be faced with those burdens.
The gays are going to do what they will do and opposing this law does nothing to stop that. But there are far more people living in non-sexual domestic partnership that are really getting screwed by the system.
"A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none. A Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one. -ML
God's blessings!
This article makes it pretty clear that this bill represents a variety of arrangements. The sponsor of the bill specifically says that it will include same-sex relationships. Where did you get the information that it was only for blood relatives?
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.