Posted on 07/16/2005 12:12:46 PM PDT by gopgen
Now you've shown yourself to be dishonest to boot:
Yes, it would cause him all kinds of deadly health risks. Anyone who cares for their grandkids would hope the same thing.
The health risks of the homosexual lifestyle are well documented. I've pinged some who will point you to the links.
Howlin, that was a very nasty thing to say. Why are you getting personally nasty? Why not keep the discussion rational? Why ratchet it up like this?
BTW, you claimed that just about everyone here has a homosexual relative. If you really think that, you've drunk deep of the Koolaid.
It is you and your tunnel vision that is mistaken.
Okay then:
It's only LOGICAL to ask somebody who is judging somebody else's child who is gay what they would do if it happens to them, don't you?
Satisified?
LJ was attacking ME and sending me nasty Freepmails to boot!
Someone here has a homosexual child that works for Santorum?
And you people wonder why nobody puts any credence into anything you all say?
Excellent post. I agree entirely with your well-expressd sentiments.
If Santorum is a libertarian Republican then I'm an anarchist Republican.
There's nothing wrong with being gay. In fact, it's downright, positively normal and everyday lollipops. EXCEPT when the gay man happens to be a REPUBLICAN, then the gloves (and I assume, also the condoms) come OFF...be damned the gayness, by GOD THAT GAY MAN IS A REPULICAN FOR MERCY SAKE!!!!
HYPOCRITS ONE AND ALL!
Did it ever occur to you that Sen. Santorum may have an influence over Mr. Traynham, such as if he didn't work for Sen. Sabtorum, he could be reveling in the promiscuous sex meth culture that is so pervasive in liberal radical homosexual circles.
****
Exactly what I was thinking...who knows how Santorum's influence is affecting Traynham...
First, isn't it a Federal law that an employer cannot ask about marriage, family or sexual orientation in hiring? It seems that Santorum could have hired this man without knowing, and isn't now willing to throw him in the garbage. I admire that.
Second, it is possible for a gay person to have a deeply conservative view of what is proper for society. In an extraordinary article by a Canadian gay man who testified before their parliament AGAINST the idea of same-sex marriage -- John McKellar, President of H.O.P.E. (Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism) says, "...we cannot and must not ignore the lessons of history and natural law. Again and again, it has been shown that whenever humankind fails to protect time-honored political, moral and social institutions, whenever humankind attempts to embrace pride as a virtue and mainstream behavior that contravenes natural law, and whenever humankind becomes arrogant, autonomous, egalitarian, nihilistic and foolish, civilization fails – always and without exception."
View the entire article at
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/McKellarJ%20HOPE02.htm
It didn't work when the Dems mentioned Dick Cheney's daughter, I'm suprised that they are going back to this play in their outdated playbook again.
I never knew that about you. :-)
What people am I?
In any event, why make this personal? Santorum has a homosexual aide. Either Santorum is a hypocrite or not. That was the question, wasn't it?
No, that's what YOU are trying to make it.
Conservatives don't believe sexuality matters, one way or the other.
I have been so amused this very week that the Dems are outraged that Rove evidently said that Plame was "fair game."
Remember where we heard that last?
Now go take a Mydol and lie down. You'll feel much better.
IIRC there are exceptions to this (I believe churches can ask to some extent). Additionally, it is fairly routine for political aides to have extensive background checks, in which case Santorum would know even if he didn't ask.
I don't think that this man would have tried to keep this a secret from Santorum. He was obviously aware that Santorum would NEED to know these things, especially in light of his politics. The only conclusion is that Santorum knew and didn't really mind. I am deeply opposed to homosexuality for religious reasons; however, if a homosexual is not running around trying to make everything a "gay" issue, it's none of my business what he does with his private life.
I find it ironic that the left is trying to force radical homosexuality down everyone's throats, but as soon as a Republican is "outed" they go on the attack.
I'll take that as a "I don't really have a reply, so I'll just make a sexist big remark" reply.
All this time I thought it was menopause.
Again JMO, and FWIW let it go. Sure you are going to have some kneejerkers calling for Santorum's head, but most of them have a previous agenda against Santorum, who BTW, is one of the most conservative members of the Senate.
LJ didn't attack Santorum and Xzins was questioning the logic, no big deal.
Like I said in my reply #139 of this thread to Xzins, if Mr. Traynham was disappointed with his employment as part of Santorum's staff, he could have left long ago, and found a job in the homosexual media with no problem.
He hasn't and forbidding a complete turnaround Mr. Traynham's(which would make him look like a fool) name is now fudge(pardon the pun) to the radical homosexual movement.
Again JMO, I think that Sen. Santorum is having a positive effect on Mr. Traynham. It maybe a small step in the big scheme of things, but a big step in Mr. Traynham's life(bucking the radical homosexual movement).
As for LJ and Xzins, I would say don't berate them. LJ in his own right has been instrumental in documenting threads on FR dealing with the radical homosexual agenda.
Do a key wrod search of "homosexualagenda"(oneword) on FR and you can see how insiduous the modern radical homosexual agenda is in modern America.
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.