Posted on 08/16/2006 9:50:04 AM PDT by Abathar
You don't have to go back that far.
Sure does in my book!
If hope this democrat outrage backfires on them.
Remember the homosexuals spent a fortune and concentrated all their efforts in colorodo to defeat the marriage amendment there. They lost by 10% after ALL that effort. It was their "best defeat" in 2004.
Two men who have sex considered the same as a human having sex with a sheep is a good analogy. Hopefully they will push it as successfully as they try and BS people with the lie that homosexuals are not more likely to be child molesters.
I think that you missing some of the argument.
The point is that, if the definition of marriage is changed by one group, then the definition of marriage can further change. It is going to be at the whim of a judge or interest group.
If the law allows marriage between gays, it is discriminatory to not allow others to have their own definitions of marriage. What gives gays the right to change the definition to fit what they want but others are denied their definition? Gays are being discriminatory.
Let's change it to a woman and her German Shepherd. If the male animal initiates sex, she is not forcing herself on Wolfgang. She would make the argument that it is clearly not animal abuse. Wolfgang is happier, he eats better, his coat is shinier, etc. Do you think some sicko won't make the argument?
If there is no history of abuse, why can't a grown daughter marry daddy? They will make the argument.
DFU: Or, how about two men and a woman or two women and a man?
PSYCHO: Not my thing, but I am not about to force my will on others.
You are part of the problem. Retaining the definition of marriage that has worked for centuries is not forcing your will on others.
Perversion has no limits.
Perversion has no limits.
20 amendments and how many state laws prove that homosexuals are not accepted.
It is just the public declarations which have become PC sanitized.
In the privacy of the voting booth, people are free to express their true opinion of homosexuals.
I believe at the time Mrs. Rowland (my county commissioner) said this the main concern was where the SCOTUS was headed with their rulings and what it would mean. She was not comparing homosexuals in a direct comparison. I think she got into a 'mixed context' situation.
It's Decause to be a Dem, is to crave the beastly
nature, such as homosexuality, extraspecies, and
base self gratificary flagellation.
Liberalism = "Humanism" = Bestial degeneration.
"Forgive me for my naivete on this subject... but wouldn't that thing they do with the gerbils count as bestiality?"
Urban legend.
I don't see a problem here.
Always wondered what sex with a Ferengi would be like? ---Sorry, I am addicted to Star Trek.
The love that dare not moo, baa, bark or neigh its name.
Dude, you aint right.
Agreed! Plus, they tried to further smear her by comparing her remarks to a Republican state representative who allegedly forwarded emails that Black Hurricane Katrina victims were lazy. Listen, it took a lot of effort for Looter Guy to wade through waist-deep water with his load of looted beer! The truth sure do hurt, don't it?;)
there was a guy in Malibu busted for having sex with a horse ...
I also will admit that I have no respect for homosexuals. None! Define someone by their sin and I will not say I have respect for them. I will not commit violence against them or whatever. But I do not respect homosexuality and therefore do not respect "homosexuals."
unwarrented = unwarranted.
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.