Posted on 12/17/2003 8:08:22 PM PST by knak
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:41:36 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
No he's not. It is you who is apparently missing the the bigger point, the bigger picture.
What's that point? I'm so glad you asked. Our hearts go out to homosexuals and at the same time we believe we should try to protect our kids and the kids of the next generation.
To my knowledge you haven't really said much on the health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle. That's a big one for us. Well, I can only speak for myself here. So that's a big one for me. As I see it, a compassionate society should discourage behavior that results in such severe health hazards as that of the homosexual lifestyle.
That lifestyle results in a deadly contagious disease that can affect all of us.
What baffles my mind is the fact that thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle is apparently ignored by you and folks like you. What's worse is some pro-homosexual folks go so far as to lie about the help homosexuals can get. Why? Yes, why?
You really need to stop disagreeing with us without supporting your statements. It comes across as supporting the homosexual agenda, and from what I've seen here, that's not acceptable behavior for those who want to remain freepers in good standing.
I'll stop there, but the bigger picture and the bigger point is much more involved.
I'm relieved to hear that. I certainly think that every single voter on the right side of the spectrum will find something some of Bush's decisions with which they disagree. I am frustrated, however, with right-wingers who seem eager to sabotage a President who has done more for the right than any other in about 20 years.
I know this has already been addressed but I look at it this way. The dictionary defines "is" yet it was redefined in court against us. The only definition of marriage that will stand is one that we define in the constitution
And the sodomites will wail and gnash their teeth
Perfect segue to post the link:
Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1)
The best defense against the homosexual agenda is the facts. The above link leads to a database of links laying out the facts about this disease. To the best of our knowledge none of the studies listed have been discredited. (If you know of a published review and debunking of this info please let scripter, EdReform, or little jeremiah know. (sorry guys, I know LJ is running the ping list but don't know whose maintaining the database))
The odds are greatly in favor of the child ending up lesbian or highly promiscuous. Why would they do that to her if they really loved her. See the database for links dealing with the outcome of children being raised by sexually abnormal people
Many of us on this site who understand your problem have stopped bothering to post against your onslaught of false science and fanaticism.
If it's false science then there must be published debunkings of it. POST THEM. Just because breakem calls something false doesn't mean it is. Face it B, you have no credibility on this site. (and that's ok. I have no credibility either. That's why we post published studies with the facts) You could be an 8 year old for all we know. Where are your studies and proofs?
People who defend traditional marriage against government-enforced equivalence of ad hoc counterfeits such as same sex domestic partnerships are "no different from the Ayotollahs of Iran"?
Rather, the differences are immense. An overwrought name-calling comparison such as yours does not make it otherwise.
Inasmuch as Marx championed your point long before and more eloquently than you do, we would be just as justified to say that supporters of same-sex marriage are no different from the hard-boiled Marxists of the late, unlamented Soviet Union.
And what rights do they not have now (that normal people have) that they want? You can't come up with one because they have every right that we have. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex that will have them, just like us.
What they want is special rights and public approval of hazardous and unnatural behaviors. They will get that as soon as the right to murder is approved
They already have equal rights. It is only when they adopt a self-definition beyond and contrary what they are--men and women--that they "suffer" discrimination. The discrimination isn't created by the laws. They create it themselves for personal convenience to accomdate private sexual perversion.
One should not be so defeatist on the issue.
I believe the number of states that _already have_ "Defense of Marriage" laws on their books is 37. That means that 37 state legislatures believed strongly enough in the sanctity of marriage "as it is" to enact such legislation.
How many states' votes are required to pass a Constitutional amendment?
Regardless of whether or not one believes that the "definition" of marriage should be codified within a nation's Constitution (I _do_ believe it should be so codified, for the record), there is a reality we must face in the real world:
WITHOUT a Constitutional Amendment defining and defending traditional marriage, the issue of gay marriage will become all but unstoppable, in the same way that the abortion issue became "unstoppable" once several state legislatures legalized it.
One can either support a Constitutional amendment that defines traditional marriage, OR ...
.... oppose such amendment, and have gay marriage FORCED UPON US as a result.
Given those two choices -- which are the ONLY possible choices I see on this issue - which shall it be?
Cheers!
- John
I have posted some research that is contrary to this crap, but the owner deleted the thread. Can't say anything about homosexuals here.
Both of you have been on too many threads to ask such a stupid question. The government licenses marriage, but tells homosexuals they cannot decide whom they will marry.
Until a recent supreme court decision homosexuals could be put in jail for having sex with each other. You can't argue that they have equal rights and then support sodomy laws. How many people have pointed this out to you?
In some states drunken single parents can raise a kid, but two homosexuals cannot adopt.
Help me out on your viewpoint. On a personal note, would you describe the thought process or the day that you made the decision to be heterosexual?
Interested in the decision process for this so I can warn my neighbors that they are really hurting their kid. Maybe they'll abandon the kid or put it up for adoption. For the good of the kid of course.
You say I'm not teching you anything. Try paying attention and doing more careful reading.
In your attack on me you have used the same propaganda techniques you use on the homosexuals. Don't you get your problem yet. Ping your friends for positive feedback so you don't get upset.
Either you are confused, yet again, or you are lying. On one thread you told me to stop stalking you when it was you who responded to something I said, and when I responded, you typed (in upper case): stop stalking me. You were confused then, so are you confused here again or are you lying?
No you didn't. Here's the thread: How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals.
Provide a link or post number to where you debunked anything in that thread.
You discussed the issue with John O, not me, and you didn't debunk anything. In fact you stopped responding to John O and ArGee on that thread.
You are correct. It was John O on the above thread. I thought you were there since all you guys post the same crap.
On second thought, I should have said I was just lying and making stuff up, easier for you to believe.
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.