A question for conservatives

[Pete]

The acceptance of a man sticking his pecker up another guys dirty sphincter and often licking off the residue is the least of our problems.
If they kept their perversion to themselves it would be fine. However
They take it to the classroom and initiate our children to the harmless and highly acceptable behavior of this mentally ill phycotic fetish.. It is their goal to make it as normal as sex between a guy and a gal.


So yes it does affect many normal families. Like bobby has 2 mommies or 2 daddies. which many schools now indoctrinate our kids with.


They need to keep their buisiness private,,,, its weird,,has been socially unacceptable for almost 6 thousand years. And all of a sudden its good stuff.?
I would feel the same if they taught mommie is married to a donkey as well and I have nothing against donkeys either.
What the hell is wrong with this Fn picture.
It sounds like I don't like queers but nothing can be further from the trueth. I feel for them in a way. It must be hell growing up being attracted to the same sex,,,and being ridiculed and sometimes beat up by your peers.,but the standard is the standard.
Why should I lower mine so somebody can feel good about their perversion.

They ought to be able to live in peace like anyone else without being mocked. However their flagrant fluffy feathered behavior in a public setting ,,,and their desire for their perversion to be noticed and accepted leaves them wide open for some rather strong opposision.

Our society can go no lower when it glorifys perversion and silences rational thought.

Buy the way I know,and love and accept as a friends some who are of this persuasion. And have counceled some and understand the pressures they can face. But it still is destructive behavior. And should not be considered acceptable in any arena.

To call it marraige is no different than spitting in Gods face and telling God he's or she is an idiot.

Pete

[Marvin S]

1. I'm not sure what you mean by "weird beliefs".

U R putting me on, in your own way.

2. If you are saying that homosexuals are more predatory than heterosexuals, I would love to see you evidence. My own personal experience suggests that opposite since homosexuals are seldom able to establish the same physical dominance over their partners that is routinely possible with heterosexuals. Homosexuality has nothing at all to do with pedophilia. They are very different and pedophiles generally don't care about the gender of their victims.

When I was in the service I was stationed at Hdqtrs SAC. As a young buck I was out & about, Omaha is only 2nd to Denver (at the time) for interesting female companionship. But there was a darker side to that fair little midwestern city.

Omaha at the time was on the entertainment circuit - Chicago, Omaha, Denver & on to Vegas - many of the entertainers still rode trains so these were convenient stops. The Blackstone hotel with it's great lounge was about 3 blocks up the street from Mutual of Omaha Headquarters & their hordes of good looking file clerks. They regularly hosted entertainers of the caliber of Nat "King" Cole. So we spent a lot of time in their lounge. A male could not go to the head without being accosted by these people you say are not "predators". Fortunately I had a friend who liked to chase the skirts as much as I did, so had someone to cover my back. The cops in Omaha wouldn't even listen to one of them if you popped them, which we did regularly. Fortunately my friend was HM for Little All American FB with enough skill to play on our Base Basketball team so he was a handy guy in a brawl.

& I would note the queers (as we called them) were all over the city.

Lets see Marv, I highlighted three areas of your post.

1)HIV funding? Where did I write where that was responsible?
2) Family Values? I'm all for strong families and strong small businesses.
3) Predatory Criminals? Who are we writing about here? Independents? Libertarians?

Confused by your post.

1) You are saying it is OK to act that way, are you happy about them moving into line for funding ahead of people who act responsibly?
2) You are not if you believe the type of conduct practiced by queers is acceptable.
3) Please see my post to Jeff for your answer.

[Patrick Johndrow]

Guys while you all are debating the legality of homosexuals the liberal pigs are looting our country…I suggest we deal with the liberal first then the homos.

Battle Priority Regards

[Franco]

1) You are saying it is OK to act that way, are you happy about them moving into line for funding ahead of people who act responsibly?
2) You are not if you believe the type of conduct practiced by queers is acceptable.
3) Please see my post to Jeff for your answer.

1) AIDS just doesn't affect Homos alone. I had a family friend years ago, an active Lt. Commander in the U. S Navy that contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion in a military hospital. Tell his widow and three children AIDS doesn't need research for a cure. Moving in line? Should we divert cancer research money into something else because people smoke tobacco? This LT. Commander was one Conservative worth saving.

2) I don't sit in judgement of anyone's lifestyle. I may not agree with it but, it is none of my business. I'll leave the Christians and Muslims of the world to sit in judgement, since that is what they think they do best. They get that power from thier ancient manuscripts.


Patrick is right on. Much more important to be concerned with the theft of America.

[badbullgator]

Sorry fella's, this is not a roght wing left wing thing.

I can tell you with all certainty that a HUGE left wing voting block is extremely anti-gay.

The demographics are very clear.
In fact, it was this voting block that turned out in force for Obama, and squashed the Gay-marriage amendment in CA.

just sayin'

Yeah but you don;t see a lot of gays in the rep party, at least not openly....in the mens room maybe, but not out in the open

[Pete]

Mentally speaking there is a fine line between homexuallity and liberalism.

We live in exciting times,,,can't wait to see what its like in 4 more years.
Time warp regards

Pete

[BrianW]

Why should I be opposed to gay marriage?

Jmtc, not because of anything against homosexuals, but because it's an essential step to the gradual, inexorable establishment of progressive statism.

In order for the State to become the ultimate authority, there can be no objections to it's rulings based on any moral/religious beliefs.
If the State can say that a religious/moral doctrine such as "Thou shalt not lie with a man as thou shalt a woman..." has NO applicability in this "enlightened" day and age, then everything else can be ruled on in regards to it's "social relativity" too and there will cease to be right and wrong unless the State says so, instead of one's conscience, belief in God or "moral code". .

Imo, but this is an important, if unstated part of Schumer's statement that "the old ways are over" The "enlightened" will "get it", the rest of the "chattering class will either learn or forced into compliance.

Also, fwiw, this issue is a root matter than makes Obama's "outreach" to the
Muslim world irrelevant and a total waste of time and our money regarding this upcoming address in Egypt. This is a core belief and just one more reason why so many followers of Islam despise and fear the US.

[Patrick Johndrow]

Mentally speaking there is a fine line between homexuallity and liberalism.

Pete

Doesn't matter...to me anyway.

[K.Bullock]

Guys while you all are debating the legality of homosexuals the liberal pigs are looting our country…I suggest we deal with the liberal first then the homos.

Battle Priority Regards

Battle priorities? If the courts interfere and redefine the definition of acceptable marriage guess what happens ... we have yet another protected class of citizens. Except this time it is based on behavior and not race or ethnicity. ..what a precedent to set in an already morally out of whack generation.

They will receive the same cultural and political considerations that blacks and other minorities (deservedly) enjoy. Their lifestyle and sexual preferences will be taught to your kids in schools like it is no big deal and perfectly natural, if you did go to church , like as has already happened in Norway, your pastor could face indictment for hate speech for simply preaching about sexual morality.

If you want to teach the children in your family that...thats fine. I do not want to be forced to accept a lifestyle .. a destructive one at that, for my family. And if I did not have a family of my own, I would certainly not tell someone else what they did and did not have to accept.

No one is telling homosexuals that they cannot live anyway they please. I simply oppose their lifestyle being forced into the mainstream and touted like it was tantamount to saving the rain forest.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Fam...gesInEducation

Changes in Education
If homosexual relationships can be "marriages," homosexuality could be taught as a part of normal family structures. In early 2006, the California state legislature proposed a bill (AB 2311) that would require homosexuality education in California public schools. On May 3, 2006, the legislature voted against the Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity Program (SEED).

National Public Radio did a feature on changing sex education in Massachusetts. Click here for a complete transcript.

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network has developed a curriculum to be incorporated in the public schools. Here are a few examples of what your child could be reading. Visit their website www.glsen.org for further information.

Battle priorities? The liberals have already figured out that to change a culture you start with it's children in the schools. That is exactly what has already happened. And what is happening. I could care less if they loot wall street our country has not always been prosperous, we can make the money back. What has been looted has been our decency and willingness to stand for what is right and good. Nobody has the drive or the guts to think for themselves for fear of what evryone else will think about them, like that someone else even cares anyway.

I am aware that some think that conservatives would do better politically if they would back down on a couple of culturally sensitive issues, in psychological terms it is called sycophancy.

[Legacy 6]

Here's my thing... Traditionally, marriage is between a man and a woman. There are Civil Unions that afford the same "rights" to partners legally as far as the common arguement as the "hospital" thing...

We had a bus load of gay couples from MN drive to Iowa to get married... here's why I don't support Gay Marriage: When a couple get's married in a state that supports gay marriage, and move back to a state where they aren't supported, does that obligate the State to then recognize the couple as married even though it's not legally recognized in that State?

If couples want to be recognized in marriage as gays, and there are states that have legalized gay marriage, then move there. Don't force your state to recognize your marriage...

That's the "force" issue I have. I don't believe in gay marriage, and my state doesn't either (yet). So don't shove it down my throat.

And what about taxes???