Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda
self | February 11, 2004 | little jeremiah

Posted on 02/11/2004 9:00:13 PM PST by little jeremiah

What We Can Do To Defeat The "Gay" Agenda

Dear Fellow Freepers,

The following informal essay has two parts, the first consisting of ideas of what individuals or small groups can do to help thwart, roll back, defeat and otherwise throw a monkey wrench into the onslaught of the "gay" agenda and their stated goal to destroy the moral fabric of society. I am hoping that discussion will ensue, with theoretical ideas as well as accomplished plans. Information and knowledge are the key. Since most people just watch TV and read the establishment media, which are lapdogs of the "gay" elite, they just do not know the truth about homosexuality.

The second part is my analysis of the root cause of the homosexual movement, going a bit deeper than environment and molestation. It is "religious" or "spiritual" in aspect, so anyone who wishes to avoid that type of discussion can avoid it! This analysis is germane to the cure, not only of the homosexual agenda, but the untrammeled hedonism and libertinism of which homosexuality is the poster child.

[Note: I am not attempting to recap the immediate causes of homosexuality, or prove that it is not inborn, or give evidence as to why same sex acts are abnormal, unhealthy, or immoral, or to prove that homosexuals can change. FR already has hundreds of archived articles of this nature.]

Part One: Ideas on Promoting the Truth about Homosexuality

A friend of ours homeschools her children, so as to protect them from the horrible influence of public schools, instill her personal moral values, and give them the best education possible. She knew that homosexuality was unhealthy, immoral, and unnatural, but until I gave her books and booklets I purchased from Scott Lively's website (www.abidingtruth.com) she was not able to articulate her viewpoint. After studying the materials I provided, she became a one-woman task force, gave her elderly father books to read, and shared the books with the charter/homeschool teacher. The teacher, who also had not been very well-informed, had her mind blown (so to speak) and ordered more materials for herself, and placed a link to Lively's website on her personal website. Lively has a number of very informative booklets that can be purchased in bulk cheap, and they are great for distributing. So because I informed one friend, many others have been informed. This particular charter school is all for homeschooled children, and there are about 500 families involved.

By purchasing Lively's materials (or reprints from other groups such as NAARTH and the Family Research Council) and making them available at your church, synagogue or other house of worship, many people can become informed. Materials can be purchased and mailed or given to pastors at other churches, or any organization or club that you belong to.

I have found that if I talk to people in the line at the grocery store, or the cashier, often people are happy to find that others have the same viewpoint, but they are afraid to admit that they think same sex acts to be unhealthy or wrong. Just by speaking up in public, we can encourage others to think for themselves, and not be intimidated by social pressure.

Of course, letters can be written to newspapers (they've never printed one of mine!), legislators, and media people. We could try calling up local talk radio shows to tell the truth or attend school board meetings to protest the homosexual infiltration of the schools. Of course, by doing any of these things we will be "outing" ourselves as homophobes ;-) but that's the risk one takes by speaking the truth.

And then there are guerilla tactics: print up some fact sheets about the nature of and diseases spread by homosexual acts, statistics about molestation rates, etc - make them colorful and readable, and broadcast them about town. Laudromats, bulletin boards in stores, public facilities, rest stops, community college or other educational institutions, any place you can find. Good places would be where there is a lot of foot traffic, especially where high school kids can see them. High schools kids are really being targeted by homosexual activists, so the more they can see the truth, the better.

Another post-it tactic: make or obtain stickers with the names and phone numbers of organizations that help people overcome homosexuality, and stick them near high schools, colleges, downtowns, and so on. You never know whose life might change because of one phone call. Or, place ads in the classified ads section of local newspapers or weekly magazines with the same information.

Other promotional ideas are bumper stickers (make you own, or maybe someone knows where to order pro-family stickers). Ideas for slogans: Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve; Marriage=One Man+One Woman; Children Need a Mother and Father, Not Two of a Kind; Same Sex Acts Are Not Healthy For Living Things; Want to get AIDS? Be Gay!; Don't confuse "Exit" with "Entry"; Don't Mess With Marriage; "Gay" Sex Isn't Gay…. These could also be signs in car windows, yard signs, signs held at rallies.

Protest at "Gay Pride" Parades. If protesting at such public events, wear protective clothing and go in groups, carry antiseptic handwipes and have a camera and maybe tape recorder. No telling what might ensue. Here's an idea that someone freepmailed to me, and it sounds good:

"I have an idea I'd like to pass your way. I suggest that we get permits to set up tables in front of (or near) our respective churches/synagogues along the local "Pride" parade routes this coming June, with literature about reparative therapy. Each table should also have someone there to document all the juvenile insults and threats thrown our way on a videocam, and send copies of the films to the local tv news to include as part of their coverage."

These are just a few ideas. Let's hear yours!

Part Two: The Root Cause of Homosexuality

Everyone needs happiness, love and pleasure. These needs stem directly from the soul, and get interpreted through the body - think of how many people eat because they are lonely, depressed, or in anxiety. A healthy balanced person will eat when hungry, and when in need of companionship will turn to a relative, friend, or even pet for company. The need for love is really paramount, a deeper need than the bodily requirements. What hurts more, a broken heart, or a hungry stomach? Our culture has denied the fact - basic to all religions (probably a few exceptions, but this is not the debate here) - that human beings even have souls, what to speak of the needs of the soul. In fact, the accepted "scientifically based" theory is that humans are just machines, made of chemicals, evolved by accident, and the "self" doesn’t even really exist. In an atmosphere of such impersonal nihilism, it is natural that many people will be easily convinced that real love, real happiness, real heart to heart connection, don't exist.

What can take its place? Instant pleasure. Shopping. Drug and alcohol abuse. Or, most seductive of all, orgasms. And since the sexual organs have no conscience, a wide variety of options is available to people who have been convinced that God doesn't exist, there are no rules - or higher purpose - to life, and instant gratification is the only yardstick to measure happiness with.

There are two kinds of happiness - the kind that comes from the outside - eating, sex, comforts, and the devices or arrangements that facilitate such, as well as more intangible pleasures such as accomplishments, goals achieved, music, arts, learning, and so on. The second kind of happiness comes only from within the heart, and this happiness is our relationship with God. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is within us, and the same truth is stated in Hindu scriptures (the Vedas) as well. A surrendered soul can experience the loving embrace of God anywhere, any time - if he truly desires and strives for this loving relationship. The experience that God is my best friend, my only refuge, my source of happiness, and indeed, the very foundation for and purpose of my existence - is the only real meaning of religion. Currently, in many religions, the concept that God is a real Person is left out, glossed over, He is described as an amorphous mystery, or that "we are God", or that He is just energy or a force. But according to Jesus, the teachings in the Old Testament, and the teachings of the Vedas, re-establishing a loving relationship with the Supreme Person is the only thing that will fill the emptiness in our hearts. If this knowledge is denied, as in most of our culture, people will seek to fill this void by any means at hand. And if the moral absolutes that are part of God's instructions to humanity are tossed out, then anything goes. If sexual pleasure is the goal of life, and there are no eternal moral truths, then there is no reason to not accept same sex acts, or, for that matter, any kind of sexual activity.

Therefore, the real antidote to the "gay" agenda, as well as the breakdown of civilization it heralds, is the spiritual awakening of many individuals, and the understanding that such an awakening is not only important but essential.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: culturewar; culturewars; gayagenda; glsen; homonazi; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; prisoners; profamilyactivism; romans1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-364 next last
Okay, class. Raise your hands! Let's hear some more ideas.
1 posted on 02/11/2004 9:00:15 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping!

Finally (I admit it's after dark) I wrote my piece - I hope you can add your ideas to it. Time to get off our duffs (I admit I sit on mine way too much) and DO something!

If anyone has good links to anything of interest, put 'em up.

Later, when we've done some of these plans, those with more money can put up bail.
2 posted on 02/11/2004 9:05:11 PM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: little jeremiah
A little ridicule goes a long way, too...



If we make it a serious liability to support this, we win.
4 posted on 02/11/2004 9:11:20 PM PST by Antoninus (Federal Marriage Amendment NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Folks could start by rescinding their "right" to non-procreative sex and their "right" to have children by artificial means.

Both artificial realities render heterosexual marriage indistinguishable from homosexual marriage.

Marriage being the basis of Family, after all.
5 posted on 02/11/2004 9:37:35 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I think a coordinated activism would help. If we're watching a show and it's pushing things we just don't want, take note of the sponsors and post them. Let's all write and politely tell them our concern and then boycott those who ignore us. Money talks. If they lose money, they won't support these programs. Without support, the shows go away. It's the only power we have. Let's use it.
6 posted on 02/11/2004 9:50:49 PM PST by ETERNAL WARMING (SHUT THE DOOR IN 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
I agree. Those are examples of what happens when people use the yardstick of instant gratification to measure happiness. I mean, if instant personal gratification is the only measure of happiness, then why stop at man+woman? Why stop at homosexuality? Etc.

The point is, sexual pleasure, no matter what kind, is not the highest pleasure or happiness there is. Gotta look somewhere else.
7 posted on 02/11/2004 10:12:06 PM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
That just isn't so; when two lesbians decide to live together it because they don't want to live with men and when two men do the same it is for the same reason.

When a man and a woman marry or live together they do so with the acknowledged risk of a pregnancy ensuing and they may not always want to have a child at the time or maybe never but they do not generally marry for the legal benefits alone.

The homosexuals of today want to marry because they want to reorder society, a disease as old as any plague known to mankind; sure there are some legal benefits that would accrue by virtue of the recognition of their marriage but none that can't currently be granted by one party to the other by law absent marriage.

The business of recreational sex is a bit of argumentative nonsense because in marriage sex often becomes a duty rather than fun and every couple can attest to that if they are honest people.

I was on the verge of developing a nascent sympathy for gays who were closeted out of their fear of loathing but this current bunch are but a batch of buttheads and I wouldn't give you a dime for a dollar's worth of them.

8 posted on 02/11/2004 10:18:50 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
For a different approach to the Gay Power issues, please see the post which I've originally written for a different forum:

I have nothing against the gays. But every time a social idea is suggested I try to examine it from the point of the impact on the society.

Now, I did not do a real analysis in the case of the Gay marriage and I would not do it (mostly because it is not an interesting issue for me); but I did at least look at it.

Lets take just one issue involved: the insurance. Legalization of the Gay Marriage would force the private employers and the government cover gay couples.

It appears that the cost of such insurance would be considerably higher than that for normal marriage. The reason is a very high HIV infection rate within the gay community (Asacr, it is close to 50% in SF). As I recall, the HIV-suppressant drugs cost alone are about 10K/year. This is a large amount.

It is sufficiently large to raise medical costs for everybody (and, if you check, you'll find them skyrocketing already). For the federal government this means bigger budget deficits; but for small/medium companies this means cutting down on insuring straight families.

The impact on society would be quite unpleasant. Some families with children would lose the insurance; some would have to pay more for it. Additionally, small companies would have darn good reasons to discriminate against gays.

The costs of gay healthcare are unproportionally high, insisting on it means trying to get an unproportional share of resources.

Perhaps someone can get better estimates; this is an issue that may affect millions of people.

9 posted on 02/11/2004 10:21:27 PM PST by mvonfr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mvonfr
Add to this the fact that male homosexuals have a very poor rate of monogamous relationships (even so-called long term relationships often have the understanding that there will be outside sex). So even if a couple of homosexuals don't currently have HIV, they may have it down the line, and the drugs cost upwards of $10K.
10 posted on 02/11/2004 10:28:06 PM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
=== The homosexuals of today want to marry because they want to reorder society,

They're over a generation behind the heteros who deconstructed both family and marriage over a generation ago by claiming "rights" to the failsafe birth control which precipitated abortion (the lethal assault on the weakest member of the Family) and using "no fault" divorce and "palimony" among other legal conceits to strip them of the freedom to bind themselves.

Among the legal benefits of marriage for homosexuals IS INDEED the "right" to have their own children as they see fit (or can afford ... a third, for-profit party being vital to all homosexual "conception.")

And it was the heteros who etched that "right" in stone for them as well.

I have sympathy for homosexuals ... even those cynical enough to want just what cash they can get for their "domestic partner" (another hetero advance).

They've been deluded by we sexually liberated heteros into thinking the State's some kind of egalitarian god who'll not only dream up whatever we need in the way of rights to make our "marriages" the most selfish of all possible relationships but will ensure that everyone gets an equal shot at bliss in the mutually-beneficial Economic arrangement one has with one's current squeeze in our serial polygamy society.

11 posted on 02/11/2004 10:32:57 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Yes, sure.

But keep in mind that 10K for drugs is not the full bill. Hospitalizations, opportunistic infections, etc. -- I did not mention these since I cannot estimate them.

I hope that what I wrote can be used. It is certainly non anti-gay and should withstand the usual "bigotry" screams. Perhaps we should try to change the discussion toward the costs to the society and children from the "Gay Marriage" idea.

12 posted on 02/11/2004 10:33:54 PM PST by mvonfr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
=== Add to this the fact that male homosexuals have a very poor rate of monogamous relationships (even so-called long term relationships often have the understanding that there will be outside sex)


How is this different from heteros these days?

As for the monies scammed from insurers to pay for AIDS cocktails, it's just a matter of the pharmas CONTINUING to use homosexuals as the cash cows they infected with Hep-C and AIDS in the first place courtesy of the SAME tainted plasma derivatives that infected 90% of American hemophiliacs as well.

Hemophiliacs are not the "renew-able" resource, however, that are homosexuals. Jocelyn Elders' sorts have no hope of educating a person into the masturbatory, narcissistic sexual model that is most conducive to homosexuality and the increasingly state-regulated "private sex lives" of mock heteros whose financial layout for birth control (and sometimes even abortion) as funded by insurers certainly adds up to -- if not exceeds -- the paltry AIDS cocktails of homosexuals.
13 posted on 02/11/2004 10:37:44 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
By purchasing Lively's materials (or reprints from other groups such as NAARTH

FYI that's "NARTH". http://www.narth.com

14 posted on 02/11/2004 10:39:14 PM PST by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
be active on school board elections.

Support the Boy Scouts with money and your votes.
15 posted on 02/11/2004 10:40:46 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
One thing is that homosexuals are WILDLY promiscuous compared to normal people. Of course figures vary, but the average male homosexual "committed" relationship lasts something like 1.7 years. The average number of sex partners for male homosexuals is huge - 50 was the smallest number I've ever seen, 100s is very common. No way heterosexuals compare to this. Add this to the anonymous sex and bath house scene common to the "gay" life, and it shows that homosexuals are in a class by themselves.
16 posted on 02/11/2004 10:46:43 PM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
I can tell a pig by its squeal in a pack of dogs but I can't figure out why the dogs don't mind.
17 posted on 02/11/2004 10:49:22 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mvonfr
It is certainly non anti-gay and should withstand the usual "bigotry" screams.

Your points about costs and insurance are well-founded and logical.

At this point, the truths about the homosexual lifestyle need to be strong, to the point, and unafraid of criticisms of "hater" and "bigot". They've shut us up for too long. Time for US to "come out of the closet"!

Kids need to be saved. They don't care about insurance figures.

18 posted on 02/11/2004 10:50:37 PM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
recruiting of the young is a serious issue to be addressed. It may be a simple as teaching children that homsexuality is wrong.
19 posted on 02/11/2004 10:50:46 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

=== But keep in mind that 10K for drugs is not the full bill. Hospitalizations, opportunistic infections, etc. --


Keep in mind that $500 or so a year for every woman taking birth control is not the full bill.

Cervical cancer, breast cancer, blood clots, warts, syphilis, Hepatitis, gonorhhea, etc. ... they all add up to over-burden with "elective" diseases and complications a medical system that's got its hands full trying to make women look like Drag Queens by providing them plastic breasts and boyish hips ... and dealing with the inevitable fallout.

And given the fact that abortion remains the most popular of all elective surgeries should give one pause. At $300-900 bucks a pop to kill a kid, those costs surely are staggering and the damage at least as patently lethal as that inflicted by homosexuals who manufacture excess lives sacrificed for "humanitarian" use by the sorts of Profiteers from whom our President procured his already-been-killed "stem lines".


To the related costs of heterosexuality as practiced post-Sexual Revolution, I'd also add the chit for anti-depressants and sexual aids necessary, it seems, to stay on an even keel and keep one's performance up to par when partaking of a more Evolutionary model of sex as based on the non-monogamous and sterile of the animal kingdom. I doubt very seriously Bob Dole's hawking a drug for which insurers won't pay up, big-time, to the pharmas.

If folks are going to decry homosexuals and their "elective" contracting of AIDS, I think the same finger ought to point to the costs of providing scrips for Viagra or treatment for the insanity that is surgically implanting toxins in your body for Effect.


=== Perhaps we should try to change the discussion toward the costs to the society and children from the "Gay Marriage" idea.

The costs to society from the "Hetero Marriage" idea as currently premised in the courts and most Enlightened minds today far exceed that which the homosexuals are incurring.

The notion we're protecting anything like a sacred institution at present from the evil homosexuals is ludicrous. Let them have their State marriages ... it's a drop in the bucket of what the Heteros currently are inflicting on all.


20 posted on 02/11/2004 10:53:18 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Your point being?
21 posted on 02/11/2004 10:55:11 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
=== One thing is that homosexuals are WILDLY promiscuous compared to normal people.

That's due, primarily, to the fact they need not worry about children. And that's why -- thanks to birth control and the programming of children with sex education -- those differences are no longer as striking as you would believe.

I find it hard to believe that in a day and age where "Girls Gone Wild" and freaknik videos are sold on network TV after the late news that there still are those pretending that heteros have some kind of monopoly on feminine modesty, male self-control and general chastity that homosexuals lack.

Where you've "evened the playing field" there's not a lot of difference left between the teams. Our current generation of kids from Rockford County's about to make that crystal clear for those of you yet consoling yourself with differences that no longer exist.
22 posted on 02/11/2004 11:03:16 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
as an employer it would be easier to just drop the insurance and pay employees the money.

All it will do is force the medical issue where the left has always wanted it, onto the goverment and onto the taxpayer.
23 posted on 02/11/2004 11:07:36 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
=== It may be a simple as teaching children that homsexuality is wrong.


I think you're going to have to dig deeper than that and not only tell them why heterosexuality is right but figure out a way to frame it as exclusive and sacred AND procreative.

Rotsa ruck.

I'm stage-managing a little play by a braindead Tennesse Williams right now. One of the actors picked up on the fact that homosexuality's perpetually a "dirty" thing in the play.

NONE of the actors understand this to have been the case for at least 25 years and offered that gays 35 and under have no comprehension whatsoever of anything but Pride in their homosexuality ... "things have changed!"

All the "pride" indoctrination by organic intellectuals aside for a moment (it's not really THAT effective without some substantive kernel of truth) ... Homosexuality hasn't changed in the last generation.

What's changed is heterosexuality.

It's heterosexuality that's been "liberated" to the homosexual model. Evidence abounds on this conservative forum where patriots commonly glamorize or at least rationalize the "stress relief" of our troops at brothels, husbands and boyfriends ogle strangely boyish but big-boobed images like Gay Porn afficionados -- shoving it the faces of all and sundry with the audacity of queens humping each other in a gay pride parade, birth control is a GIVEN even among so-called "pro-lifers" who can't seem to understand that acceptance of the birth-control mentality as a "right" cannot possibly stop short of the "failsafe" birth control which only selective homicide assures.
24 posted on 02/11/2004 11:14:25 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
Your points are not in opposition to the opposition to the normalization of homosexuality. Sexual libertinism is a continuum, with man+woman sex divorced from lifelong marriage, fidelity, and children as the norm. IOW, you seem to be saying the why worry about homosexual marriage when promiscuity and sexual libertinism among heterosexuals is so much more grievous?

The answer is that they are different manifestations of the same problem. But one point is that as screwed up as relations between men and women are (generally speaking, as evidenced in your posts) at least there is the potential, between a man and a woman, for having a lifelong commited marriage. Between a man and a man, there is only the potential for sexual aberration. Nothing else. So when one accepts same sex acts, one crosses a line in the sand. It is not just more of the same, it is stepping off the cliff.

Homosexuality has always been forbidden in civilized societies, barring some Greeks here and there. But the norm for accepted sexual behavior has always been marriage. Add to that every monotheistic religion has forbidden same sex acts, and for a good reason. Acceptance of homosexuality opens the floodgates to "anything goes".

I am not denying that the slippery slope has already been slid down in the form of birth control, pre-marital and post-marital sex, abortion, and so on. But I think your focus is a little off. Rather than complaining that people shouldn't single out homosexuality for criticism, I think all forms of degrading and destructive sexual behavior should be condemned. And at the very least, should not be forced on everyone, especially kids in school.
25 posted on 02/11/2004 11:15:14 PM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Which is just what the government wanted in the first place.

They don't dream up these "rights" -- particularly to birth control and the pre-determining of your child's sex (as advocated by the GOP in the 1970 Congressional Record) -- without a reason.

Homosexuals are the State's idea citizen. Make no mistake about it. That's why all "rights" of heteros and the legal decisions of Family & Marriage (and palimony) courts all have served to re-form heterosexuality into a homosexual model.
26 posted on 02/11/2004 11:17:32 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
My point is that there is absolutely no use in decrying homosexuality while at the same time reserving for heterosexuality the perks of non-procreative sex and marriages not premised on the formation of Family as reserved strictly for those who can have children on their own without the assistance of artificial reproduction.

People that live in glass houses are not well-positioned to throw stones.

And the notion that we need or even want the imprimatur on marriage from a State which sanctions and even promotes birth control and abortion and which interprets for-profit pornography (to include "faked" images of childsex geared solely to elicit real ejaculations from heteros with a classic homosexual youth fixation) is ludicrous.

The real battle begins when we reclaim a rational and natural respect for human sexuality and Family. Founding one's arguments re: the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage fails absolutely absent the rescinding of artifical contraception and reproduction as "rights" and the return of a right to obligate one's self for Life which has been deconstructed by 'no-fault' divorce.

Another important move would be the rescinding of all assistance for single mothers by which the State hedges its bets that unPlanned pregnancies will end in abortion.

Anything less and we're nothing but hypocrites for pretending that homosexuals are not entitled to the same Artificial Realities heterosexuals enjoy.



27 posted on 02/11/2004 11:30:57 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
=== I am not denying that the slippery slope has already been slid down in the form of birth control, pre-marital and post-marital sex, abortion, and so on. But I think your focus is a little off.


My focus is on the root of the problem. Were it not for that "slippery slope," there would be no foundation for the claiming of "equal rights" by homosexuals in the first place.

You don't fix a math problem by tacking on what calculations you think will bring you back in line. You UNDO the calculations to the point where first you went awry and start again.

Those of a mind that we cannot possibly put the genie back in the bottle might as well resign themselves to the fact that homosexual marriage is not going to be the end, by far, of the State's purposed deconstruction of marriage and family.
28 posted on 02/11/2004 11:36:22 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
=== nd which interprets for-profit pornography

as "Free Speech" (sorry about that missing bit)
29 posted on 02/11/2004 11:37:53 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
I share your views about sexual immorality and degradation. Yet, I am reminded of people - conservatives, who don't want to vote for Bush because he isn't conservative enough. A vote for a third party candidate, or sitting out the election, only harms the conservative cause, increasing the possibility of Kerry or which jackass the Democraps pick, will win. At least with Bush, the behemoth may start turning around.

In a similar way, if people in general - who obviously don't have their morality as fine tuned as you do (or me, I basically agree with everything you say) can at least draw the line at same sex sodomy, there's a chance maybe their view of what is moral and what is not may become more and more enlightened. I don't think it useful to want all or nothing. The Queen Mary can't turn on a dime. Several generations of people accepting immorality as benign can't change overnight. At least if people wake up to the fact that two men ( or two women) commiting sodomy isn't and can't be "marriage", it's a start.

Also, there is something particularly vile about the ramming and cramming of homosexuality down kids' throats especially in school. It must be stopped.

30 posted on 02/11/2004 11:41:20 PM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
My focus is on the root of the problem.

Did you read the second part of my "essay"?

31 posted on 02/11/2004 11:43:02 PM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I have read all you posted and it's true we are agreed in most respects. But not all. Particularly this one:

In a similar way, if people in general - who obviously don't have their morality as fine tuned as you do (or me, I basically agree with everything you say) can at least draw the line at same sex sodomy, there's a chance maybe their view of what is moral and what is not may become more and more enlightened. I don't think it useful to want all or nothing.

It is a great fallacy to believe that we can adopt the strategies of the enemy to serve our ends. Most can recognize the evil that is "the ends justify the means."

Few recognize the inherent evil of pragmatism ... a mindset so flawed in such an insidious fashion that the Left would have had to invent it (and it did) had it not existed as a vehicle by which the West would presume the powers of alchemy.

But "incrementalism" is understood as intrinsically flawed by even fewer still.

Truth does not work the same as falsehoods. Deceipt operates like the slow heating of water to make a pot of frogs boil before they know it. Truth is the dousing of cold water sufficient to stop the cooking -- of pasta, veggies or frogs -- in its tracks.

It's deceipt that comes upon a person like dusk -- one minute they still can read in the waning light, the next moment they are blind. But truth is like the sun which illuminates all the moment dawn's rosy fingertips break the horizon.

You cannot "incrementalize" people toward the truth. That's a bait and switch operation doomed to failure every bit as surely as the GOP's staunch defense of the "rape/incest" clause for permissable abortion will ensure the practice remains legal however "reduced" or regulated abortions may one day be.

32 posted on 02/12/2004 12:14:13 AM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Askel5; little jeremiah
LJ. One thing you didn't mention is prayer.

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

We are the answer. We have the power to have our land healed. But we need to repent and call on God. Before we do anyting else (and all those other things are needed) we need to pray

Askel5. You bring up lots of good points but they miss the point.

I had a similar discussion with Luis Gonzalez (Hope I spelled that right) the other day. Look at the defense of marriage like the defense of our borders.

Just because we can't stop every last illegal from getting in should we let all of them in? No, we should defend as best we can.

My point is that there is absolutely no use in decrying homosexuality

It is always useful to fight against evil

while at the same time reserving for heterosexuality the perks of non-procreative sex and marriages not premised on the formation of Family as reserved strictly for those who can have children on their own without the assistance of artificial reproduction.

I find nothing wrong with non-procreative sex within the bounds of marrriage as long as an abortifacient is not used. (As I understand it every form of birth control pill is actually abortifacient). I can find nothing in the bible to support banning barrier methods or coitus interuptus.

I also find nothing wrong with medical assistance for reproduction. (There is no such thing as artificial reproduction, Either the sperm joins the egg or it doesn't) Some people need assistance to conceive. Just as God gave us medical knowledge to cure cancers and other diseases God gave us the knowledge to help the infertile to fulfill the command to go forth and multiply. Of course I do not agree with surrogate mothers etc. If we cannot use the knowledge God gave us to cure infertility then we are equally wrong to use medical knowledge to cure cancer. Again I find nothing in the bible that bans use of medical knowlegde.

the return of a right to obligate one's self for Life which has been deconstructed by 'no-fault' divorce.

Agree entirely. Marriage should only end due to adultery or criminal activity (abuse) and the at-fault party should lose everything.

Another important move would be the rescinding of all assistance for single mothers by which the State hedges its bets that unPlanned pregnancies will end in abortion.

One assistance that should exist is prenatal care and adoption assistance. All of this should be in services not in cash. Otherwise I agree. Sex is for married people only.

Performing an abortion should be treated as capital murder. It is always premeditated, the victim is always innocent and defenseless. Legally execute a few of these 'doctors' and the whole problem goes away. (Until we get to that point however we still need to keep fighting)

That all said, refusing to fight the 'homosexual' assault until we have these issues fixed is exactly the same as saying "OK sodomize me and my children legally". Just because we can't stop every fist fight is no reason to make murder legal.

33 posted on 02/12/2004 5:28:37 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: John O
=== LJ. One thing you didn't mention is prayer.

Interesting you mention this and direct it to LJ even if Saint Teresa was hitting me hard on the subject en route to work today. (I'm reading her "Interior Castles" at the moment.)

Fighting the evil of homosexuality is not going to be accomplished by sweeping legislation to outlaw a behavior you have no hope in hell (literally) of stopping. That's something better left to the "each one save one" approach whereby we leave no family member left behind (as best we can).

Understand that I'm opposed to homosexual marriage but I see no possible foundation for arguing that it is illegitimate given the state of affairs of heterosexual marriage right now.

I also don't see the point in pretending we are preserving solely for heterosexuals a privilege of recognition from a "moral" or just state when our government is anything but moral. I think that this flawed debate serves one very insidious purpose that is the pretense of the U.S. Government as some kind of stronghold against evil when -- to the contary -- the U.S. Govenment is a leading proponent of the Culture of Death as couched by its judiciary and exported worldwide under the guise of various US-AIDs.

=== I find nothing wrong with non-procreative sex within the bounds of marrriage as long as an abortifacient is not used.

Most sex is non-procreative. That is only natural.


=== (As I understand it every form of birth control pill is actually abortifacient).

Many more effective means of jacking with the female body are used but the rendering of the womb from natural home to hostile environment is the failsafe operation by which any human life which is conceived is doomed.


=== I can find nothing in the bible to support banning barrier methods or coitus interuptus.

I find it astounding that Christians so devout as to uphold the Bible as the be-all, end-all of human affairs can -- in the same breath -- evidence their refusal to allow the Creator a hand in making their every union fruitful if He so desired.

What gives you the right to shut God out of the one truly potent and world-changing act of the Co-Creator man that is reproduction? Where do you find that in the Bible?


==== I also find nothing wrong with medical assistance for reproduction. (There is no such thing as artificial reproduction, Either the sperm joins the egg or it doesn't) Some people need assistance to conceive.

Where is the acceptance of God's will in this equation?

There are indeed moral means of assisting humans to conceive. But there also are patently immoral means ... including the manufacture of the Excess human life our "pro-life" President used as he legitimized the use of human beings as a cash crop.

Here are some cogent points I hope you will consider as each comports perfectly with the body of Scripture as well as the objective truth of the matter (courtesy of reason) which safeguards from the rationalizations and "personal interpretations" by which each feels entitled to his own comfort level with whatever technology is proferred under whatever guise of "humanitarian" assist.

And, most importantly in my view, they carefully include ALWAYS the third party to the sexual relationship that is the child who -- if God has a hand in the conjugal union -- may be conceived therefrom.

2376. "Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral.

These techniques (heterologous ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage.

They betray the spouses' 'right to become a father and a mother only through each other.'[CDF, Donum vitae II, 1.]">

2377. "Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable.

They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that 'entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.

Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.'[CDF, Donum vitae II, 5.]

'Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union .... Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.'[CDF, Donum vitae II, 4.]"

(To view the context, please visit Article 2376, 2377)

Respect for the Human Person and Scientific Research

34 posted on 02/12/2004 7:41:25 AM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; scripter; lentulusgracchus; ArGee; Bryan; MeekOneGOP

[Note: I am not attempting to recap the immediate causes of homosexuality, or prove that it is not inborn, or give evidence as to why same sex acts are abnormal, unhealthy, or immoral, or to prove that homosexuals can change. FR already has hundreds of archived articles of this nature.]


Links to some of this archived material (special thanks to scripter for compiling it):

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)
Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.0)
Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)
Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

35 posted on 02/12/2004 8:33:38 AM PST by EdReform (Free Republic - Now more than ever! Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John O
The reason I didn't mention prayer was that I wanted to keep "religion" in the second part, because I didn't want to inflame people who may not have a spiritual or religious understanding from considering what they can do to thwart the homo-promoters. That said, I did say that a spiritual or religious awakening is the only thing that will really change our country (and indeed, the world) from a giant handbasket sliding south, to a world where people might at least have a fighting change to live lives free from the overwhelming soul-destroying influence of the grossest types of vicious hedonism.

Prayer can be like breathing. It should become a way of life, a background to one's existence, one's refuge and hope, a constant supplication for the mercy of God. I have no doubt that someone enthralled by homosexuality can change if they dive into prayer. But to even WANT to do this generally requires help of some kind.
36 posted on 02/12/2004 10:13:17 AM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
You are right that people cannot be "incrementalized" towards the truth. People cannot be pushed, coerced, pummeled, or legislated into truth. Approaching truth (which you and I both understand to be the truth of God) is an individual journey, undertaken volunarily. I also respectfully disagree that it is a "all or nothing" journey. Have you read C.S.Lewis' "Surprised by Joy"? He describes one man's spiritual journey very well.

Just as your very poetic description of deceit being a gradual darkening, like the sunset, it is also described that the dawning of truth in a person's heart is like the rising of the sun. It does not go from pitch blackness to the brilliance of noon, it is a gradual process of enlightenment to the truth of God's existence, His love, and His Person.

But here, we're not talking about somehow getting masses of people to become saints. We're talking about a war, and there are many battles in this war. Just because the war can't be won with one giant symbolic nuke, doesn't make it worthless to fight one battle at a time.

I look at it like this: if ONE child or teenager can be saved from becoming seduced into a miserable life of homosexduality, it is a cause for celebration . If many can be saved, it is a great victory.

Homosexuality is a worse depravity that the other sexual sins we have been discussing. It is so depraved that those who habitually indulge become hardened to God's voice in their hearts, and they are prone to seeking others on which to prey. Sexual license which degrades society is a continuum; but I see no wrong - and great good - to fight this battle, and not succumb to hopelessness, or defeat, thinking that because there is other immorality rampant there is no use in fighting this one.
37 posted on 02/12/2004 11:04:33 AM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
I find it astounding that Christians so devout as to uphold the Bible as the be-all, end-all of human affairs can -- in the same breath -- evidence their refusal to allow the Creator a hand in making their every union fruitful if He so desired.

God gave us a free will to choose Him or to reject Him. He gave us a free will to choose when to have children, or even to have none at all. No where in the Word does it say that every union of man and woman must result in children. No where. If God determines that it's time for you to have kids then the barrier method of contraception that you've chosen will not work. (rubbers break etc). I don't believe that God chooses to force things upon us in this life. If He doesn't even force Himself upon us why would He force children upon us?

The sex act between man and wife is for more than just producing children. It is the way that we become one flesh. Joined more closely to each other than to any other person. As we can see in the Song of Solomon, it can also be a whole lot of fun.

Enjoying each other is not against the bible (If you have a verse that outlaws it let me know. I've not been able to find one that even hints that every coupling must produce children. I can't even find one that says that every coupling must have the potential to produce children)

What gives you the right to shut God out of the one truly potent and world-changing act of the Co-Creator man that is reproduction? Where do you find that in the Bible?

First of all man is not the co-creator. There is no such person. Everything was created by Jesus. Not by us.

The only real world changing (improving) act that man can do is to lead another person to Christ. Merely producing children does nothing to change the world. And if you fail to lead those children to Christ then you are actually making the world a worse place than it was.

Man cannot shut God out if God decides to be in. God, however, is a gentleman and will not force Himself or His will upon us. He will bring events to persuade us to do it His way but He will not force us. If He would force us than no one would ever go to Hell and there would be no sin in the world. And we know that that is not the case.

==== I also find nothing wrong with medical assistance ...

Where is the acceptance of God's will in this equation?

Expand this beyond reproductive assistance. "well I have cancer. It must be God's will that I die from it right now because I can't use medical knowledge". "Oops, I cut myself. Must be God's will that I bleed to death because I can't use medical knowledge". "Oh no. My child has spina bifida. It must be God's will that he die young because I can't use medical knowledge" Pretty nonsensical isn't it. God gave us the knowledge to use.

I see nothing in the scriptures that prevents us from using medical knowldge to heal people, or to help them honor God's command to multiply

2376.

Agreed. As I stated in an earlier post

2377. "Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable.

Disagree. There is no biblical prohibition against this.

They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act.

I guess that infertile couples are not allowed to have sex because there's no chance of children. Fortunately there is no biblical command that the sexual act must be procreative every time.

The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that 'entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.

The act of a husband's sperm uniting with a wife's egg is always an act of them giving to each other. If the appropriate cells need a little assistance to complete the act then that's OK. Again I see nothing in the bible to ban this.

While God can open a barren womb (and has biblically) sometimes he uses doctors to accomplish his will. I've seen people healed of cancer miraculously and I've seen God send people to certain doctors to undergo medical treatment because of which they were healed. How can we say to God "You must fix this problem only this way". God gave us medical knowledge. It would be ungrateful to not use it.

I also disagree that it "establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person." Only God can create life. Only God determines our origin and our destiny.

This is akin to saying that because the local mechanic repaired my car he controls what roads it drives on forever. Not true

38 posted on 02/12/2004 11:24:12 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Here's another idea: since most colleges and universities have become hotbeds of homosexual promotion, anyone who is an alumni of such a university or school can inform themselves of what is going on, write letters to said college or university criticizing such homo-indoctrination and activity, send letters to alumni organizations and publications, and STOP the donations, bequests, and so on!

Universities listen when alumni quit sending checks.
39 posted on 02/12/2004 11:30:27 AM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: John O
=== God gave us a free will to choose Him or to reject Him

And you reject Him when you exclude Him from the act of conjugal union.

40 posted on 02/12/2004 6:46:38 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
This thread seems to have been turned into a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" discussion (only different because the points being discussed are important). But not relevant to what WE can do to subvert, stall, turn around and bollux the homo-fascists' plan to turn the US, and indeed, the world, into a homo-friendly stalking ground.

I am hoping that people may post some more ideas that may inspire people to do something - many small acts do have an effect.
41 posted on 02/12/2004 7:40:57 PM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
And you reject Him when you exclude Him from the act of conjugal union.

Scripture? I can find in the bible anything that even hints at this. Prove it to me in scripture.

God is a part of everything we do in life. He is always there in our home and in our marriage. So since He is always there how are we excluding Him. His word says that He is with us always, even to the end of the age. He'll never leave us nor forsake us. So how (scripturally based please) could we be excluding Him?

42 posted on 02/13/2004 4:48:02 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
My apoolgies. I let myself be drawn off topic. If the conversation continues I'll take it off line
43 posted on 02/13/2004 4:49:13 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: John O
Legally execute a few of these 'doctors' and the whole problem goes away.

That's like saying you only execute the hitman and not the person who hired him. The women who choose to hire abortionists have to be walked to the gurney, too, no?
44 posted on 02/13/2004 4:56:15 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: John O
=== So how (scripturally based please) could we be excluding Him?


What is this "scripturally based" nonsense?

Absent some "scripturally based" indication that God wills us to render the sex act sterile with the use of contraceptives, I see no reason for you to believe you are allowing God full reign in your life.

Is there anything about contraception in the Scripture? Onanism (the most natural contraception of all) appears to be grounds for condemnation. What in the world makes you think your manmade means for contraverting the potency of the male and fecundity of the female -- as designed by their Creator -- is legitimate?

I'm truly curious how you rationalize this.
45 posted on 02/13/2004 8:33:17 AM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Gays' great game plan leads to political correctness gone amok

Rebecca Hagelin: The beginning of the end for America? (the gay agenda)

Nuances of gay identities reflected in new language 'Homosexual' is passé in a 'boi's' life

46 posted on 02/13/2004 9:24:26 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
I appreciate that you have views that you want to discuss that are germane to the topic of the fact that in many ways our cultuer is in the handbasket heading south with the temperature getting hot, but this particular thread was started to exchange ideas about what people can DO to thwart, hamper, and defeat the homosexual onslaught. Maybe your discussion could go elsewhere?
47 posted on 02/13/2004 11:19:23 AM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
=== what people can DO to thwart, hamper, and defeat the homosexual onslaught. Maybe your discussion could go elsewhere?


How is rejecting THEMSELVES the homosexual model of sex not a witness to the moral heterosexual lifestyle you wish to uphold?
48 posted on 02/13/2004 11:24:20 AM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; All
Here another ideas/thoughts about being pro-activist on the side of truth:

If we want to sit in our houses, knowing that the homosexual agenda means destruction and death, but we don't do anything about it, the situation will only get worse and worse. What's ahead? Hatespeech laws, fines, imprisonment, loss of control over our own children, teaching children the evils of homosexaulity will equal "child abuse" and kids will be removed from homes where traditional morality is taught, maybe forced re-education is mental hospitals? Who knows.

Some people might consider these fears far-fetched, but face it - would you have thought 15, 10 or even 5 years ago that things would get to the sorry pass they are at now?

So, things have gotten to the sorry pass now BECAUSE people who know the truth didn't stand up for it! We LET the homo-activists have their way for the same reason Neville Chamberlain said there would be "peace in our time" - APPEASEMENT!

If we continue on this path, there is no telling what kind of degradation we will see and be a partner with.

It is coming to the point where many of us will be forced to choose - to shut up and accomodate the "gay" agenda, or stand up and speak the truth, and risk our job, our livelihood, and peace in our family? It means being willing to be laughed at, criticized, villified, and maybe sued.

If we aren't willing to take these risks to fight for what is right, we deserve whatever hell the homosexuals want to create.
49 posted on 02/13/2004 11:27:40 AM PST by little jeremiah (everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ETERNAL WARMING
Does anybody go to these states or cities on vacation?
50 posted on 02/13/2004 11:29:04 AM PST by TomHarkinIsNotFromIowa (Foe Hammer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-364 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson