Posted on 02/12/2011 1:52:43 PM PST by icwhatudo
"You have culture telling gays to be liberal. The left is trying to coopt gays & I dont think we should let them"
Where is that jump the shark icon?
I thought we tried that and some Dem congressman lied and said he was spit on.
There are parts of this country I DON'T WANT! I just want to end the southern occupation.
You paint with far too broad a brush here. “They” are hell-raising radical leftists who checkoff homosexuality as their identity politics.
&&&
So-called conservatives who segregate themselves into a group by their sexual disorder are not engaged in identity politics? If there is no pro-homosexual agenda in their club, what is the point in their banding together?
Whatever they do in their bedroom is no business of mine — and I suspect that the vast majority of FReepers agree with me — but by proclaiming themselves “proud” of their disorder they are trying to force the rest of society to say that it is a normal and even desirable state.
our country back ,exactly
“You TOTALLY misunderstand and misrepresent God. How can you tell someone to repent if you don’t tell what their sins are?! God does NOT want us to ignore sin.”
LOL. In Luke Jesus speaks of “some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others.”
Luke is filled with the examples of those “who pray thus with (themselves), ‘God I thank Thee that I am not like (them).’”
Of course Luke warns against such righeousness, and describes how Jesus praised the sinner who judged only himself and prayed for forgiveness: “for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Words to live by, or to try to, it would seem.
ah yes tea party violent treason etc,Egypt protest ran by commies and marxists financed by soros and all is well with them
I’m so sorry that you don’t understand the difference between repentant and unrepentant.
I laughed when I read that Bam said Mubarak had to listen to the people. The Tea Party was the first thing I thought of.
Definitely! Look how she insulted those with questions about Obama’s eligibility. She called them “cranks” and used the KKK to make her point. Was that necessary?
Not only is she wrong about Obama’s eligibility. She is insulting about it.
Her moral compass is not pointing at a true north.
Acceptance means:
People being forced to rent to homosexuals.
People being forced to attend “sensitivity” training.
People being forced to bunk next to them or work with them in the military.
People being forced to shut up unless they have something “nice” to say about homosexuality - no “diverse” opinions or thoughts, including those based on religion (or science, or medicine, or common sense, or reason) allowed.
Children being taught in schools that homosexuality is normal and natural and in fact if they’ve ever had a “gay” thought, feeling or experience, they are “gay” and cannot change.
Photographers and wedding planners forced to serve homosexuals for the “weddings” and penalized if they choose not to.
Accepting men dressed as women or women dressed as men in bathrooms they don’t belong in.
Just to give a few examples, there are many more.
In other words, “acceptance” means everyone else must perforce have their freedoms of speech, religion and association forcibly removed.
“Acceptance” means anyone who doesn’t “accept” is a target for hatred and ultimately, legal action.
This is the truth. Either you don’t see it due to your emotions, or such things are a-okay with you. Which it is I neither know nor care.
I’ve had it up to here (hand way above my head) with the promotion of the homosexual agenda. It is sick, depraved, anti-freedom, anti-Constitution, and a symptom of a society that is sick unto death.
Hating the homosexual agenda does not mean hating any indiivduals. You like to make this claim but believe me, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
My computer is being very bad and may crash at any moment, it keeps doing it.
So if you don’t hear from me for a while, that’s why.
Apparently I don’t have to.
You’ve taken all understanding and adjudication upon yourself.
Good luck!
In my experience having visited other countries where prostitution is often quietly tolerated (if not outright legal), there are plenty of whorehouses and liquor stores not far from elementary schools without any repercussion. I don't know about next door, but I've seen liquor stores and whorehouses yards away from elementary schools, and it didn't seem to make a whole lot of difference to anyone. But then, the people that lived in these countries didn't include a large bunch of folks proselytizing about how evil consensual "crimes" are, while regularly threatening the lives and livelihoods of those involved even tangentially.
Now, God only knows what you think about the propriety of a liquor store being open, anywhere, in the first place. But in my experience, there are plenty of liquor, beer and wine sales going on yards away from elementary schools in many states, without any problems.
While I think that in America, government shouldn't be zoning people out of a legal property use, yes, I probably wouldn't bat an eye at stupid government doing what you describe, purchasing poor land from the lowest bid for a school, regardless of the location and possible risks to the kids attending. Of course, I wouldn't be stupid enough to let my own kid attend such a public elementary school in the U.S. as that in the situation you describe.
First, with a whorehouse next door, and moral crusaders getting all riled up about how loose women/sex/horny men are the source of all evil, my kid might well be attacked in a pimps' turf war (since the value of whores would rise given the lack of supply, making any pimping position a high-end, cash-only, lucrative criminal business enterprise, as in many states today). Or my kid might be hurt by angry Carrie Nation wannabe types, either overtly, as in, a little overzealotry on their way to burn out the whores (maybe my child could be exposing her ankles that day, or loitering too overtly with a Judy Blume book or something), or accidently, as by an arsonist's fire in a whorehouse that spread to my child's school.
Second, what would any kid of mine be doing in any government-run "school" when I can afford an actual education for them instead?
The discussion above is predicated on the assumption that you meant a "public elementary school," because any private school would know better than to locate in such a dangerous area. Here in the U.S., because of those who think prohibition of prostitution is somehow productive for public health purposes, any private school would be forced to close or move the school away from a whorehouse immediately, or at least run out any house of ill repute that opened up. This would of course be in order to avoid having their students withdrawn by parents who fear their family members will become secondary victims of dangerous altercations between the proprietors, government/criminals, and, again, moralist crusaders.
It is interesting, given your implied preference for zoning laws that preclude whorehouses and liquor stores near elementary schools, that where prostitution is legal, its proprietors and the governments that permit the practice seem to have been successful in confining that business to certain zones--away from elementary schools. Your implied preference of banning prostitution and liquor use by minors outright is not at all successful at keeping whores or liquor away from minors or schools in the first place. Banning whores doesn't stop them from appearing to sell their 'product,' whereever they find demand. See (links not safe for work, I'd imagine) www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/nyregion/03bronx.html, articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/23/local/me-swedish23, www.wdef.com/news/reverse_prostitution_sting_in_chattanooga_nets_20_arrests/11/2009, coedmagazine.com/2008/02/26/hot-for-teacher-top-18-sexiest-sex-offenders/. Banning liquor in students' hands doesn't do much for preventing the under-21 set from getting hold of it...too many links to that to even bother.
But whatever floats your boat. Sorry for collaborating in the thread highjacking, y'all. I just wanted to address the "hypothetical"...and insult.
even this Tammy bruce has left the log cabins, yes I know they changed their name because they were busted for being Dems but they’re the same thing
Homosexuals are crude and obscene. Their sexual practices are unhealthy and kill them early. The average age is 50.
---------------------------- Phooey. That's like pro-abortion people freaking out when people describe or show pictures of what really happens in an abortion. The actual bloody slaughter is fine, just keep it under wraps!! Nothing anyone can ever say can equal the real depravity and sickness of the "gay" life.
What does all that have to have with the promotion of homosexual acts as normal and natural and forcing that acceptance on everyone?
Must of hit a nerve....
Identity politics has no place in Conservatism, it is sop for Democrats.
What they do is their business, but they want to force their “sin” on the rest of society. I don’t want my kids learning about “fisting” as part of their education.
Should all “sinners” behavior be taught to little children? I don’t think so. Yet that is the agenda. It is NOT Conservative.
I’d rather not be voting on the same side as those who thoroughly reject basic conservative values.
One of the basic values is: natural law. Natural law requires a rejection of homosexuality, since homosexuality is the unnatural use of God-given human sexuality. When people reject nature, they reject Nature’s God, and they make gods of created things.
Ann Coulter has been co-opted. For how long, we don’t know. She ended up a Romney supporter in 2008, didn’t she?
Tell me that God rewards sin and tolerates it.
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.