Posted on 08/05/2010 5:04:23 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen
Marriage should never be based on a mortal sin.
But it does. Medicare/medicaid, social security, the right to adopt and twist a childs mind, it DOES affect everyone.
It also cheapens the family unit. Homosexuals simulate sex. Their "marriage" is also a simulation of the real thing. They also cannot have children of their own so they do NOTHING for the evolution of mankind.
Validating homosexuality as a viable lifestyle reinforces their mental problems.
And last but not least, they are the path that Rome took when they rotted from within. Rome rotted from within and fell. Immorality has consequences.
No it is not really the same logic at all. There is such a thing as precedent involving Court decisions. This decision is setting a precedent for people to claim an inherent identity based upon their sexual behavior. This judge is now ordering that the people have no right to representation on an issue of how sexual behavior is dealt with in public. More similiar cases will follow once the precedent is set.
All laws based upon aspects of sexual behavior such as polygamy, the age of consent, incest, public fornification, etc... will be the targets next. If a judge can deny people from having representation on one aspect of how sexual behavior is dealt with in public then any of these others can then follow suit.
Besides you act as if it wont effect you but we already have a push to force all of society to accept this new perverted morality by force of law. Businesses and taxpayers are being punished and sued if they do not want to accept homosexuality or want to be associated with it. This is a form of fascism that is creeping in and it must be fought against and stopped or it will gain power and spread to other areas as well.
You obviously didn’t read my post nor do you have any understanding of what is going on here.
The ones who are violating others rights here are the homosexual activists of the left-wing. They are the ones trying to FORCE others to follow their morality and not the other way around.
If “gay” marriage is okay, then is also plural marriage, borther-sister, and others. And this will have negative results.
So why dont you explain to us why the majority can tell people when their children are old enough to engage in relationships then if a majority must respect whatever definitions of sexuality that they want.
Today every state has a different definition and every country even a further contrast in these laws so there is no proof or even consensus as to what the answer is regarding ‘age of consent’.
So why shouldn’t a judge knock down the phobic fears of those who feel like they have to make laws telling other parents what is right and wrong for them and their children?
The real reasons homosexual activists have pushed for marriage and it has nothing at all to do with love, monogamy or even tax benefits.
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.]
The author is not conservative, I am sorry. If you can’t understand and figure out what the problems are you aren’t conservative.
Really, it’s just wrong and perverse, that’s what’s wrong.
Next question?
I am not religious at all but I have the basic common sense to know that homosexuality is a corruption of natural sexuality and is harmful to society and especially to children.
And I guess you skipped over the post in this thread outlining with reference all of the dsyfunctional behavior of people inflicted with this corruptive disorder.
Here in my state our ex-Governor was cruising parks, bookstores and public men’s rooms looking for strange hmosxual sex to satisfy his sickness. Who knows he may have even molested a few children in these public restrooms as well being that they use these same bathrooms as well.
I guess though that is what you think is good and normal for society.
Geez in England when they tried to outlaw sex in public bathrooms the gay rights activists all said it was discrimination. This is how sick the people and behavior you believe in are.
Call others small minded if you like but you have a sick mind if you believe that homosexuality is good and normal.
Part of Jim Robinson’s FR mission statement:
Whence, here is part of Jim Robinson’s mission statement, you can click the link and read the whole thing, then you’ll understand that FR is not a “free for all” any opinion goes website. It is for conservative discussion, and the homosexual agenda is not in any way shape or form conservative. You’re new here, so maybe you have not read this, it is on the home page of FR - actually part of it is, and then linked. It’s well worth reading in its entirety.
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
Marriage has been defined for ages as the union of a man to a woman. It’s primary purpose is to facilitate procreation. The homosexual agenda is to destroy that focus and make it into just a contract. If the courts rule in their favor it will violate the meaning of and demean the institution of marriage.
I guess if your a left-wing pervert then you think that is cute.
And you are who to dictate everybody’s opinion? You spout the same kind of crap that the court did with it’s “everybody must accept my ideas”. So you are saying that everyone on FR MUST only espouse the opinions and ideas that YOU find acceptable.
You act just like all those flaming liberal who say we all have to think like they do.
And I am not new here - I’ve been around for more than a few years.
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.
