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

To: Dimensio

Anyone who will display their sexual perversions openly and then demand that everone cheer them and declare them normal .....

We would not allow a child to be placed in a heterosexual whorehouse either! What about allowing habitual criminals to adopt? Hey - that's only a "lifestyle", no?

If homosexuals are allowed to adopt children, then where do we stop with the abnormal? well -- bestiality is a choice also is it not? sado-masochists? pedophiles?

You will cry that of course we shouldn't put the children in jeapordy with pedophiles, but what the hell do you think NAMBLA is except homosexuals who want the right to rape little boys - and all the homosexual organizations openly endorse NAMBLA (North America Man-Boy Love Assoc - or something like that).

No - homosexuality is NOT NORMAL - otherwise you could procreate (without the aid of another -gasp!- sex). Nature, unaided, culls out the defective.

I know homosexuals, I have friends who are homosexuals and I respect them as people. They don't hide their partners either. But they do not practice perversion openly and corrupt children. I do not accept that from anyone no matter what their preference is.

We should also never allow people with diminished mental capacity to adopt either. People with mental imbalances are dangerous to children.

Let's take this treasonous judge --- if you do not make laws according to the prevailing morals of the communisty - what do you make laws for?

answer: if you are a politician-lawyer-judge --- for whoever pays the highest price! Until "We, the People" enact the Second Amendment again.


44 posted on 12/31/2004 6:41:06 AM PST by steplock (http://www.outoftimeradio.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: steplock
Anyone who will display their sexual perversions openly and then demand that everone cheer them and declare them normal .....

Huh?

We would not allow a child to be placed in a heterosexual whorehouse either!

Who said putting children in any kind of whorehouse? Why is it that so many people are throwing in these red herrings? Are your arguments against allowing children in foster homes where a homosexual is present so weak and devoid of merit that you have to wave your hands around in an attempt to distract from the real issue?

What about allowing habitual criminals to adopt? Hey - that's only a "lifestyle", no?

Tell you what. Tell me why we shouldn't allow habitual criminals to adopt (note: I agree that habitual criminals should not be allowed to adopt). Then find a way to relate that reasoning to not allowing children to enter foster care where a homosexual is present. Right now, I don't quite see how the two issues are related.

If homosexuals are allowed to adopt children, then where do we stop with the abnormal? well -- bestiality is a choice also is it not? sado-masochists? pedophiles?

Again, is your argument against allowing homosexuals to be present in foster homes so weak that you have to toss in these red herrings?

You will cry that of course we shouldn't put the children in jeapordy with pedophiles, but what the hell do you think NAMBLA is except homosexuals who want the right to rape little boys - and all the homosexual organizations openly endorse NAMBLA (North America Man-Boy Love Assoc - or something like that).

You would help your credibility if you didn't lie and claim that homosexuals universally support NAMBLA.

Do you know what the Rene Guyon Society is? It's a group of heterosexuals who believe that adult-child sexual contact is healthy and normal. By your reasoning, we should keep foster children out of the care of heterosexuals.

No - homosexuality is NOT NORMAL

Left-handedness is also NOT NORMAL. Going from red herrings to irrelevant factiods. The frequency of homosexuality within the population has no bearing on whether or not it poses a direct harm to children.

otherwise you could procreate (without the aid of another -gasp!- sex). Nature, unaided, culls out the defective.

Ah, so homosexuality is now "bad" because two people of the same gender cannot procreate. I'm sorry, I don't see how the lack of procreative ability equals "bad thing". I can't reproduce simply by taking a shower, so should I stop bathing?

I know homosexuals, I have friends who are homosexuals and I respect them as people.

Which is why you associate all homosexuals with NAMBLA, right? Lots of respect there.

They don't hide their partners either.

I don't see why they should.

But they do not practice perversion openly and corrupt children.

And any homosexual who would do this should not be near children, nor should any heterosexual who would do this. This is yet another red herring.

I do not accept that from anyone no matter what their preference is.

Well, you won't get argument from me. Apparently, however, you are under the mistaken impression that this ruling was about "allowing homosexuals to practice their perversion openly and corrupt children".

We should also never allow people with diminished mental capacity to adopt either. People with mental imbalances are dangerous to children.

Red herring.

Let's take this treasonous judge --- if you do not make laws according to the prevailing morals of the communisty - what do you make laws for?

Deliberate evasion of the point. The judge ruled that DHS did not have the authority to regulate morality, not the state. The judge's ruling was based on the fact that DHS did not have the authority to make regulations simply based upon "moral" decisions (not that the state can't make such regulations) and that the state failed to show that children suffer any harm from being in households where homosexuals are present.

answer: if you are a politician-lawyer-judge --- for whoever pays the highest price! Until "We, the People" enact the Second Amendment again.

Is that a death threat? Is your position really so devoid of factual arguments that you're willing to resort to violence to silence any attempt to inject rationality into the matter?
45 posted on 12/31/2004 12:34:12 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

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