Posted on 12/23/2010 12:42:20 PM PST by Enchante
"Twice this week, President Obama suggested that he might become the first sitting U.S. president to support gay marriage. He said his views on whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry are "evolving"...."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yep. Ultimately they want to destroy America and hand all control to the highest bidder, under some kind of UN charade.
One day they’ll try and “evolve” to that.
It’s a month by month process for them, getting people to accept more than they did the month before.
Typical flip-flopping politician. He previously said he opposed gay marriage; now it must be more politically advantageous to be for it.
“Just like he lied about nearly everything else.”
I noticed the other day while I was setting up my wifes new HDTV that everytime the man lied during his presser he followed the lie directly with “It’s a fact”, and went on to lie again, and follow immediately saying “It’s a fact”.
I don’t watch TV as a rule, but my wife likes certain shows, and so we got modern last week. I am NOT aware therefore if it’s common practice for Obama to say immediately after every lie “It’s a fact”.
Is it a fact?
That's it.
LJ,
We don’t need no stinkin’ homosexual agenda threads no more. /s
By definition, any thread that discusses 0h0m0 IS a homosexual agenda thread.
I suggest that you rename your ping list title to:
Simply 0h0m0.
Squatting and hoping that an oiled gerbil will shoot straight up from the sand.
0mama: I like to get me some!
Sounds likely. He also says things like ‘all economists agree’ and ‘all climate scientists agree’. As I said, he doesn’t even have a passing acquaintance with Truth. And Big Media laps up the lies reporting them as Truth. We are in a very sorry state of affairs.
In other words, nothing is stopping him from pushing and enacting the marxist agenda, so what the hey?
Actually, benefits are not the main reason homosexual activists want “marriage”. That’s way down on their list. The main reasons are below:
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
You hit the Fuhrer on the head. ROFLMAO
IOW he hasn't heard from Soros yet.
So much for being a Christian.
We may love the ssinner but we are not to support the sin...
That needs to be posted more often. It’s key to understanding the homosexual agenda.
Imho, there were indications during his campaign that something was not right with this man or with his wife. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this was a marriage of convenience, designed to present Obama as an acceptable candidate for president.
LOLOLOLOL.
He’s a pandering puke. Demagogue. Liar.
He has already supported infanticide, so anything he does now???
Rick Warren should come out against Obama. Really I think Rick Warren`s so called Christianity is in real doubt.
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.