Skip to comments.
The Alliance for Marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment
http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/030304/030304.htm
Posted on 06/29/2003 8:56:49 PM PDT by Antoninus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-159 next last
To: Sandy
I'm with you there. If more people would worry about keeping their government in check rather than begging the government to keep the guy next door in check, this country would be a lot better off. This hysterical desperation is almost embarrassing to watch. What do you call laws mandating that children K-12 be forced to learn homopropaganda in school? How about laws forcing businesses to hire cross dressers? How about laws forcing foster parents to attend homosexual sensitivity training programs? These are just a few of the laws either on the books or soon to be in the great state of California. Do you call this government being in check or not?
To: pram
I have nieces and nephews. Your point being?
102
posted on
06/29/2003 11:24:45 PM PDT
by
kms61
To: kms61
My point being that children are being sexualized at younger and younger ages by movies, TV, schools, and therefore their peers, even if not at home. The homosexual agenda has long planned - since about '72 or '73 to abolish the age of consent. They want young partners.
To: pram
What do you call laws mandating that children K-12 be forced to learn homopropaganda in school?...I call it irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
104
posted on
06/29/2003 11:34:06 PM PDT
by
Sandy
To: Sandy
It is very relevant. GLSEN and all forms of new acronyms pop up daily seeking to indoctrinate children into the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuals want to get to that 4 or 5 year old who thinks the opposite sex is still "icky with cooties". There has to be a point where people of conscience say ENOUGH. Remember the clause about domestic treats. Threats to the children of this nation definitly qualifies.
Homosexuality is a behavior it is not a gender or race. An ammendment will clarify this to the leftists.
To: longtermmemmory
treats = threats
opps , typo.
To: pram
None of which has anything to do with decriminalizing private consensual behavior between adults.
I'm clearly not going to convince you that I'm right, nor am I trying to. And you're not going to convince me that your postion is the correct one.
I've been staying off these threads because nobody ever changes anyone's minds, and they seem primarily to be havens for people who like to argue. However, judging from the number of threads and comments on FR over the last four days, many people here think this is THE central issue facing our country....with so many imminent challenges out there, that just baffles me.
107
posted on
06/29/2003 11:40:12 PM PDT
by
kms61
To: Sandy
What do you call laws mandating that children K-12 be forced to learn homopropaganda in school?... I call it irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
And I'd call your non-answer a cop-out.
To: kms61
Since there are so many threats, it is a good thing there are so many conservatives to spread the work around and support each other. It obvious the 2.78% of the homosexuals do that. The are trying to infect the republican party with their parody of lincoln club and have already made the democrat party the party of perverts.
To: templar
I agree:
"Major changes to our government need to be approached very. very cautiously, the enemy is hihtly organized and has plans for every contingency. One mistake and we have a new government." -- #50, templar
The Constitution is not an appropriate bulletin board for expressing outrage, especially these days. No matter how outrageous the thing you are steamed about.
We see the huge amount of nonsense loose all over the place. Court decisions, Federal government legislation and executive actions, bloated government, wacked-out people doing nutty things, etc.
What restrains (or used to restrain) these justices, congressmen, executives, lawyers? Things weren't this crazy, even 30 years ago. Tradition, fear of peer's disapproval, perhaps here and there wisdom and good sense were the restraints.
When those restraints begin to crumble, we loose a ring of defense around our liberties.
Marriage didn't need special constitutional protections 30 years ago, it was fine then. And: our Constitution hasn't changed. So something else must be wrong.
Therefore, devising shrewd "improvements," "reforms" to tack on to the Constitution is the wrong approach.
The only hands we could even begin to entrust to review and alter the Constitution must only be individuals as wise as those who debated and prepared the document originally.
The sorry bunch of officials and high political operators on the public scene today don't measure up. They can't even keep the country running as sanely as when they received it from yesteryear's leaders. They couldn't be trusted to "fix" the Constitution, they would damage it accidentally or by design, instead.
Were there some serious flaw in the Constitution, it likely would have turned up long before now, after 200 years of operating experience. Even if there were a serious flaw, we're safer to limp along with the Constitution we have than to trust the current crop of "leaders" to fiddle around with it.
It would be better to wait (a generation, if ever) until a new group of genuinely capable statesmen arrive before we dare to tamper with the Constitution.
To: envision
when? When do we answer the call to do right? Kill this now and there may be no next generation. Remeber what hitler said, "who cares what you think, I have your children." This is about taking our children. In another generation these indoctrinated children will be lost and out duty to stop these degenerates will be gone. You will be in a re-education (diversity sensitivity) training school. Big brother loves you.
To: kms61
...on which our representatives should spend their time, effort, and political capitol. The amount of time, effort, and political capital which has to be spent on passing this is close to nil. It is going to be a total no-brainer for most politicians who wish to remain in office. It will not detract at all from other business.
112
posted on
06/30/2003 12:12:04 AM PDT
by
AFPhys
(((PRAYING for: President Bush & advisors, troops & families, Americans)))
To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington; PhiKapMom
Agreed. I have always found that "queer" is a particularly descriptive substitute for the word "homosexual" should a different word be needed.
113
posted on
06/30/2003 12:23:22 AM PDT
by
AFPhys
(((PRAYING for: President Bush & advisors, troops & families, Americans)))
To: Antoninus
Anyone still think this is a losing issue? If the polling data is accurate, no.
And it would be my personal desire to not have gays call their 'arrangements' marriage.
I'm VERY concerned with the idea that the Federal government should define and regulate marriage. Regulate is what they do, after all...
Ideally, the gays would back off and choose another name.
Depending on the wording, and given IRONCLAD assurances there would be no interpretations allowing for the expansion of government law, or the ability of the courts to make new law from the Amendment, (For example Federal conditions for a Federal marriage license - did you consider that?) then I might vote for it.
114
posted on
06/30/2003 12:50:29 AM PDT
by
DAnconia55
(Fundies are captive voters.)
To: Coleus
Bush and the Republicans also promised a Human Life Amendment, I'm still waiting... Hmmm.. point. Abortion is a far more serious issue than this is.
115
posted on
06/30/2003 12:52:16 AM PDT
by
DAnconia55
(Fundies are captive voters.)
To: longtermmemmory
My view is still: The Constitution isn't broke. Don't mess with it.
Whatever social or legal problems arise, they are unlikely from defects in the Constitution. Such issues must be addressed, win or loose, below the level of the constitution.
It is too dangerous, the Constitution is too precious and our republic too fragile. Too easily, this plays into the hands of the enemies of liberty.
For instance, were a constitutional amendment proposed--not ratified, just proposed and sent out for ratification--by conservatives, then soon afterward crackpot liberals would be whining it wasn't fair: since the conservatives got an amendment, "fairness" demands the liberals get one too. And people would be swayed by this "reasoning."
To: PhiKapMom; JennieOsborne; /\XABN584; 10mm; 3D-JOY; 75thOVI; 5Madman; <1/1,000,000th%; 11B3; ...
117
posted on
06/30/2003 4:41:31 AM PDT
by
davidosborne
(www.davidosborne.net)
To: templar
No, this will grow-unlike flag burning & other such 'causes' we are all faced with this problem. The worst is to see homosexuals with children. I have & the kids are thoroughly screwed up-lost & disturbed. A disgusting situation. Like watching an execution of the innocent.
I am glad the law suit is happening-we need a series of cathartic events in this society-wake up calls by another name.
To: davidosborne
Good Morning, David. How's it going? BTTT!!!!!
119
posted on
06/30/2003 5:09:46 AM PDT
by
E.G.C.
Comment #120 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-159 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson