Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unitarians Confirm Our Forecast that Group Sex Will be Next
http://massnews.com/ http://www.uupa.net/polyprinciples.html ^ | 12/8/2004 | editor massnews.com

Posted on 12/08/2004 10:14:16 AM PST by gidget7

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 next last
To: Eric in the Ozarks

Never been to a UU service (might try it if I'm feeling really freaky)but I do know they basically started out as Deists with the outer veneer of mainstream Protestantim. A few UU groups have taken in Wiccans under their umbrella. I wonder why folks just don't start the the First Church of Eros?


61 posted on 12/08/2004 11:27:48 AM PST by brooklyn dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

Or trisexual, they'll try anything...


62 posted on 12/08/2004 11:28:08 AM PST by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: clearsight

Where do Unitarians stand on Pharohs, Mayans, and Aztecs?


63 posted on 12/08/2004 11:29:59 AM PST by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: weegee

is that an argument against traditional marriage?


64 posted on 12/08/2004 11:33:06 AM PST by notigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave

We meet every 2nd Saturday.


65 posted on 12/08/2004 11:34:11 AM PST by notigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: notigar

It's a joke along the lines of "Take my wife... please."


66 posted on 12/08/2004 11:34:54 AM PST by weegee (WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave

The UU church in my neck of the woods is more a political entity than a church these days. I've been once or twice and every time it was a political "sermon" with various sidebars organizing anti-war protests, PETA potlucks, etc.

It's barely a church, IMHO - maybe it once was (and the anticipated original Deist-with-a-protestant-flavor was what made me go those few times) but that's long gone.

LQ


67 posted on 12/08/2004 11:37:52 AM PST by LizardQueen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Oh I am sure they would be welcome at a group sex encounter. Where do they stand on them ???? I am sure they would be affirmed and included with enthusiasm at any of their services along with their weird religious beliefs.


68 posted on 12/08/2004 11:41:07 AM PST by clearsight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
the main one

wow, what a denomination. bet they have some real swinging private parties.

69 posted on 12/08/2004 11:41:17 AM PST by Ciexyz (I use the term Blue Cities, not Blue States. PA is red except for Philly, Pgh & Erie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: weegee

it was funny. I just thought you were so anti- this you weren't joking.

A man and a woman who have never met before find themselves in the same sleeping carriage of a train. After the initial embarrassment, they both manage to get to sleep; the woman on the top bunk, the man on the lower.

In the middle of the night the woman leans over and says, "I'm sorry to bother you but I'm awfully cold and I was wondering if you could possibly pass me another blanket."

The man leans out and, with a glint in his eye, says, "I've got a better idea... let's pretend we're married."

"Why not?" giggles the woman.

"Good," he replies. "Get your own blanket!"


70 posted on 12/08/2004 11:41:47 AM PST by notigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

Polygamy is the logical next step from this statement. Since Massachusetts is the battleground (U-Boat Teddy's involvement) and unitarianism is big in MA compared to other areas of the USA, it will be a short time before polygamy is brought before the Supreme Court of MA and accepted.

The left is playing a shell game. While the conservatives wait years in committee for passage of an emasculated edicts, marriage protection amendments, and the like, the courts will allow everything not spelled out exactly in the MA constitution.

The left is using the constitution against the constitution both in the states and at the federal level.

Meanwhile, each decision stirs up debate which brings the activities into the mainstream consciousness. Someone uses Roman law over biblical prudence in an argument and BOOM: Instant tolerance. Add the fact that people tend to stay away from arguments in a letigious society and you have acceptance protected under the canopy of defacto rule.


71 posted on 12/08/2004 11:44:18 AM PST by sully777 (The enemy within pits the constitution against the constitution & capitalism against capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
We advocate for any form of relationship or family structure – whether monogamous or multi-partner – which is characterized by free and responsible choice, mutual consent of all involved, and sincere adherence to personal philosophical values.

Translation: We don't believe in much of anything at all. What ever you want to do is cool. Be nice.

What a religion...

72 posted on 12/08/2004 11:48:04 AM PST by TChris (You keep using that word. I don't think it means what yHello, I'm a TAGLINE vir)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sully777

A conservative might not be in favor of state-sanctioned relationships at all. Do you realize that if you can pass an amendment saying marriage is between a man and a woman, you can pass one saying it isn't?


73 posted on 12/08/2004 11:54:31 AM PST by notigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus

Is that like the founder of Greenpeace saying most enviromentalists are wakkos and troublemakers?


74 posted on 12/08/2004 11:57:11 AM PST by Sinner6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: notigar

A conservative might not be in favor of state-sanctioned relationships at all. Do you realize that if you can pass an amendment saying marriage is between a man and a woman, you can pass one saying it isn't?



You make my argument live. Thank you. While you and I argue the finer points of conservatism and the role judeo-christian prudence in the US government and Constitution, the left will have moved three steps ahead of us. It's a shell game. We're playing catch-up, living in some ancient thought in their minds.


75 posted on 12/08/2004 11:59:38 AM PST by sully777 (The enemy within pits the constitution against the constitution & capitalism against capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

What??? But Mr. Rank-and-File Liberal told me that would never happen! He accused me of being paranoid and a hate-monger. He said that same-sex marriage and polygamy have NOTHING to do with each other and I was ridiculous for even bringing it up. You don't suppose Mr. Rank-and-File Liberal was wrong, do you???


76 posted on 12/08/2004 12:04:14 PM PST by marsh_of_mists
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Indie

Done!
Thanks.


77 posted on 12/08/2004 12:05:53 PM PST by SmithL (People who are willing to accept everything, don't believe in anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

>>>Sen. Kennedy Says Opponents of “Gay Marriage” Are Bigots<<<


Who gives a 'RAT's arse what this fat drunken killer thinks?

As y'all can guess, I thank God for not allowing me to get involved with the Unitarians either!!

<><


78 posted on 12/08/2004 12:09:46 PM PST by viaveritasvita (Contend for the Truth of God against false teaching. Jude 1:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee

In case of bigamy a mans only hope is to get a really high paying job and hope the women keep each other occupied shoe shopping.


79 posted on 12/08/2004 12:11:28 PM PST by Sinner6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: sully777

So, lets lose the battle and not the war. If we were really worried about morality/Biblical guidelines, divorce would be illegal. Once the barrier is breached, little is left that can be supported. Laws protecting kids being a prime example of things that can. Was the government founded on certain ethics received from Mosaic law? Sure it was. It was also founded on slavery.

Its hypocritical for us to cite all of the terrible things government does in its daily functions, and then cry for it to protect morals. It can't spend our money but it can keep our religion? It should be out of the business of making preferences, altogether.


80 posted on 12/08/2004 12:12:52 PM PST by notigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson