Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I am very educated on the eschatology and exegesis of the Bible.
Try again...........
Gingrich did not change his opinion. He never said he once thought gay marriage was wrong, but he now thinks it's right. He still has the same opinion he always had. He is just recognizing a fact, the United States is sliding into degeneracy and nothing can stop it.
So do child molesters, rapists, thieves, and murders.No matter what you think of homosexuality, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are members of our families, clubs, and workplaces. They are our doctors, our teachers, our soldiers (whether we admit it or not), and our friends. They yearn for acceptance, stable relationships, and success in their lives, just like the rest of us.
Should we accept and embrace them also??
In a truly democratic society, you have to right to do whatever you please as long as what you do is not harmful enough to justify the government preventing you from doing it.
Unless you can't discern the difference between child molesters and gay couples, the answer to your question should be obvious.
^^^^^ Coming from you TM, that basically means zip............
So do child molesters, rapists, thieves, and murders.
Should we accept and embrace them also??
In a truly democratic society, you have to right to do whatever you please as long as what you do is not harmful enough to justify the government preventing you from doing it.
Unless you can't discern the difference between child molesters and gay couples, the answer to your question should be obvious.
Of course homosexuals should have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit. They aren't hurting anyone else and when they do, there are criminal penalties for that. The way they choose to live their lives isn't an issue. It's whether the way they conduct their lives should be embraced as an alternative form of normal by the entirety of the people.
Gay couples and child molesters are both alternative forms of normalcy. The comparison is correctly made.
In a truly democratic society, you have to right to do whatever you please as long as what you do is not harmful enough to justify the government preventing you from doing it.
Unless you can't discern the difference between child molesters and gay couples, the answer to your question should be obvious.
Of course homosexuals should have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit. They aren't hurting anyone else and when they do, there are criminal penalties for that. The way they choose to live their lives isn't an issue. It's whether the way they conduct their lives should be embraced as an alternative form of normal by the entirety of the people.
No, the issue is should the government be allowed to discriminate against a select group for no compelling government reason violating the who concept of equal protection of the law embodied in the 14th Amendment, the principals of liberty and justice embodied in the Constitutions preamble and what we teach to our children when the conclude the pledge "with liberty and justice for all".
No one is suggesting that the entirety of the people should enter into same-sex relationships.
Gay couples and child molesters are both alternative forms of normalcy. The comparison is correctly made.
No it's not.
One is a relationship between consenting adults that harms no one.
The other is raping a child.
Big difference.
>>>>
Of course homosexuals should have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit. They aren't hurting anyone else and when they do, there are criminal penalties for that. The way they choose to live their lives isn't an issue. It's whether the way they conduct their lives should be embraced as an alternative form of normal by the entirety of the people.
No, the issue is should the government be allowed to discriminate against a select group for no compelling government reason violating the who concept of equal protection of the law embodied in the 14th Amendment, the principals of liberty and justice embodied in the Constitutions preamble and what we teach to our children when the conclude the pledge "with liberty and justice for all".
No one is suggesting that the entirety of the people should enter into same-sex relationships.
Gay couples and child molesters are both alternative forms of normalcy. The comparison is correctly made.
No it's not.
One is a relationship between consenting adults that harms no one.
The other is raping a child.
Big difference.
>>>>
The age of majority at which time an individual has the capacity to consent to sex is arbitrary. Lower it to ten, lower it to six, there's no crime. So this rape of children is merely a matter of the calendar.
The issue isn't whether the government will discriminate, it's whether the government will support the individual's right to discriminate against that which the individual considers wrong.
While no one has suggested that everyone be required to enter into same sex relationships, what homosexuals intend is that everyone accept same sex relationships as a form of normalcy and not consider it the perversion that it is.
What the government should do is extend same sex relationship rights to everyone only as far as the government goes and preserve individual rights to say no.
Science only explains the physical mechanics of the universe.Does ANY religion on the face of the earth explian the world better than sceince?
What the government should do is extend same sex relationship rights to everyone only as far as the government goes and preserve individual rights to say no.
I think hindsight is 20/20 always has been always will be and I think if Gingrich had been better at getting his message out he might have been the nominee instead of Romney.More than that, he blames the Republican party for fostering a corrosive culture that produced Romney as its candidate. The former House Speaker argued that the GOP has grown stale and introverted, putting itself on the wrong side of history on issues like immigration and painting itself into a corner on others, like gay marriage.
Romney's failed candidacy was just the latest illustration of this, the 69-year-old Gingrich said in hour-long interview that dealt, in large part, with the GOPs problems and what he hopes to contribute to their solution.
"The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to ... accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states -- and it will be more after 2014 -- gay relationships will be legal, period,"
"The reality is going to be that in a number of American states - and it will be more after 2014 - gay relationships will be legal, period," as reported in the Examiner.
SOURCE 1: Newt Gingrich Changes Views on Gay-Marriage, Says 'Deal with Reality' : Law & Society : Lawyer Herald
SOURCE 2: Newt Gingrich Supports "Reality" Of State-Sanctioned Marriage Equality
SOURCE 3: Newt Gingrich On Mitt Romney: 'I Would Have Probably Done Better' Against Obama
Don't really have anything to add here... just want to know what you all think.
So do child molesters, rapists, thieves, and murders.No matter what you think of homosexuality, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are members of our families, clubs, and workplaces. They are our doctors, our teachers, our soldiers (whether we admit it or not), and our friends. They yearn for acceptance, stable relationships, and success in their lives, just like the rest of us.
Should we accept and embrace them also??
Oh boy, I know this topic is the highest thing on my list right now
Your recollections are correct he didn't. He had more to say about divorce than about same sex consenting adults. He did, however, talk about people who are "Eunuchs from birth" which many historians believe is how gay men were referred to. Jesus considered them a "gift from god".
Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can. (Matthew 19:11-12)
.Assuming hes sincere, this will place more pressure on social conservatives as they see more republicans accept the Constitutional requirement to allow same-sex couples access to marriage.
I agree with source #3. He would have done much better against Obammy and I knew it all along. However he still would have lost. I mean how many real flesh and blood people can run against Santa Claus and win??
He did according to Revelations 22:14-15I am very educated on the eschatology and exegesis of the Bible.
Why did Jesus not mention homosexuality?
[/QUOTE]Gingrich did not change his opinion. He never said he once thought gay marriage was wrong, but he now thinks it's right. He still has the same opinion he always had. He is just recognizing a fact, the United States is sliding into degeneracy and nothing can stop it.
.This clarifies another thread I saw last night.
I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said.
'by the authority of the state'
2013 should be exciting in GA. jmo.
Cityhood for unicorporated areas, finding ways to keep the state running and this.
But it cannot explain how life started or what it's purpose is about.
Only religion can do that...........
Nice false equivalency.
It is indeed comforting, however, to see that you remain unbeset by the ravages of intelligence.
I hate seeing an animal suffer.
So do child molesters, rapists, thieves, and murders.
Should we accept and embrace them also??
In a truly democratic society, you have to right to do whatever you please as long as what you do is not harmful enough to justify the government preventing you from doing it.
Unless you can't discern the difference between child molesters and gay couples, the answer to your question should be obvious.
Of course homosexuals should have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit. They aren't hurting anyone else and when they do, there are criminal penalties for that. The way they choose to live their lives isn't an issue. It's whether the way they conduct their lives should be embraced as an alternative form of normal by the entirety of the people.
Gay couples and child molesters are both alternative forms of normalcy. The comparison is correctly made.
So do child molesters, rapists, thieves, and murders.
Should we accept and embrace them also??
In a truly democratic society, you have to right to do whatever you please as long as what you do is not harmful enough to justify the government preventing you from doing it.
Unless you can't discern the difference between child molesters and gay couples, the answer to your question should be obvious.
Of course homosexuals should have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit. They aren't hurting anyone else and when they do, there are criminal penalties for that. The way they choose to live their lives isn't an issue. It's whether the way they conduct their lives should be embraced as an alternative form of normal by the entirety of the people.
Gay couples and child molesters are both alternative forms of normalcy. The comparison is correctly made.
Of course homosexuals should have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit. They aren't hurting anyone else and when they do, there are criminal penalties for that. The way they choose to live their lives isn't an issue. It's whether the way they conduct their lives should be embraced as an alternative form of normal by the entirety of the people.
No, the issue is should the government be allowed to discriminate against a select group for no compelling government reason violating the who concept of equal protection of the law embodied in the 14th Amendment, the principals of liberty and justice embodied in the Constitutions preamble and what we teach to our children when the conclude the pledge "with liberty and justice for all".
No one is suggesting that the entirety of the people should enter into same-sex relationships.
Gay couples and child molesters are both alternative forms of normalcy. The comparison is correctly made.
No it's not.
One is a relationship between consenting adults that harms no one.
The other is raping a child.
Big difference.
>>>>
The age of majority at which time an individual has the capacity to consent to sex is arbitrary. Lower it to ten, lower it to six, there's no crime. So this rape of children is merely a matter of the calendar.
The issue isn't whether the government will discriminate, it's whether the government will support the individual's right to discriminate against that which the individual considers wrong.
While no one has suggested that everyone be required to enter into same sex relationships, what homosexuals intend is that everyone accept same sex relationships as a form of normalcy and not consider it the perversion that it is.
What the government should do is extend same sex relationship rights to everyone only as far as the government goes and preserve individual rights to say no.
None of your heros can explain scientifically how life began.Sure it can!
As explained by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, Bill Nye, Charles Darwin... I could go on.
