Posted on 07/24/2004 4:32:41 PM PDT by MadIvan
re: ambrose's comment, "I think we can do without some of the other comments I am reading here, don't you?" I agree. The ugly comments on this board make me cringe. Can't you people stick to making valid points instead of pretending that homosexuals aren't human?
Your comments say more about who you are than who "they" are.
A man who is a pro-abortion (in all cases) supporter, UN worshiping, affirmative action loving, tax raising, gun controller, kowtower to Europe, with the ability to appoint the most liberal supreme court justices in the history of the republic, my dream candidate? Not in this lifetime.
hardly an individual. he is just parroting the HRC talking points.
I think that my comment says that I'm REALLY tired of so-called Republican or conservative commentators pretending that they've formed a well-grounded argument against re-electing Bush when they're really only forming that opinion based on a single issue, which they do not clarify.
In addition, I'm just tired of the gay/lesbian/whatever folks in general. Enough already. Getting the country to say that gay sex is just as socially functional as heterosexual sex won't make it true. The two babies I bore and raised prove that.
Absolutely true. Though its slightly deeper than that.
Andrew has never been a terribly conservative fellow in the first place. But he likes the image, so he's been trying his d*mnedest to redefine the word to suit his personal preferences. Witness his unintentionally hillarious effort at making the "conservative case for gay marriage."
Andrew is at best a fellow traveller with conservatives around basic fiscal issues and the War on Terror. He's a libertine on social issues, at least the extent of his personal wanton desires. And he has a history of trying to play both sides against the middle to best position his personal agenda - the largest item of which is homosexual advocacy.
When reading Sullivan, one must never forget that he's willing to bend any position for the sake of achieving homosexual political goals. Much like when reading Christopher Hitchens, one must never forget that his addiction to iconoclasm.
Sullivan's article is so easy to demolish on a logical and factual basis - it makes me wonder whom he thinks he is addressing.
Everything before and after this phrase is cosmetic. He wants to be able to marry another man, and that is the most important thing to him. He thinks we can't see that, but -perhaps to his credit, or not- he's not that nuanced.
Homosexuality is obnoxious and much worse, and the gay agenda being forced on all of us is way more than unfair. Sell it to someone else.
FMCDH(BITS)
ewwww
Well, since those decades of policy hadn't improved things, I guess the President realized it was time to try something new!
Then just let the damned issue go. It's easy enough to ignore gays. Harder to ignore liberals.
I'd prefer Bush to keep his religion out of politics, in the same manner I'd prefer everyone to keep their religion out of politics. But that would be a more perfect world, and we can't have that ;-)
hey Andrew - I respect your thoughts, but I also have to tell you that you want to re-write God's laws, and that - you are not only misguided, but also illminded. Being gay is a mindset - not a birthdefect! Being active in a gay lifestyle is not only wrong, but also a SIN. It is wrong, because you guys carry a high rate of Aids infection - again, that is why God says it is a Sin, and wrong. It must not be tolerated by anyone in any society, and I can only hope that you have enough respect for our desires as well. Go, and find an island - there you can do whatever you like to do!
Yes, Andrew, that policy was just SO EFFECTIVE, now wasn't it? What a dope.
Bush respects the First Amendment on religion which is why he DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE among groups who may receive such funds. Sullivan shows his ignorance, falsely believing that the Founders intended a SEPARATION, when they intended only to prohibit a PREFERENCE for one over another---a "Church of the United States". I really thought he was smarter than to fall into the Ralph Neas/Lawrence Tribe school of Constitution Studies.
The ironic thing is that I've never had any problem at all with gays as individual people-- in fact, I've always liked the ones I've known. What I have a problem with is the few activist gays trying to overturn 3000+ years of human history to re-define their relationships as "marriage". And, I've been generally annoyed at Andrew Sullivan for faking his positions. Reasonable people who follow his commentary would conclude that he has sold out to the far left wing of the Dems, and solely because of this issue. He's just not intellectually consistent.
The AIDS is going to Andrew's brain. It's very sad.
I have the same problem with Andrew that you do. Yes, it's dishonest b.s. he's spouting. I just don't see gays as a threat to our way of life or our constitution.
Whover it was upthread who spoke of voting for what's best for the country had it right.
Meanwhile, I'm leaving this thread. Hearing ignorant people talk about "mindsets" and "sin" makes me gag. So, adios.
"Was it really necessary to insist that the Geneva conventions do not apply to detainees in the war on terror?"
Yes, and it still is. Terrorists have no legal rights under the Geneva convention.
Poor little Andrew Sullivan. He doesn't realize that he is so last year.
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.