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

Skip to comments.

Romney: I Am Not Anti-Gay
AP ^ | 5/24/07 | BRENDAN FARRINGTON

Posted on 05/24/2007 4:59:50 PM PDT by f150sound

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-95 last
To: JasonC
He has been neutered by multiculturalists ...

Mighty fine phraseology, there!

51 posted on 05/24/2007 6:16:21 PM PDT by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, safety and success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: JasonC

I like Mitt’s philosophy. He has a very definite opinion about how far the purview of government should reach....thereby giving individuals more freedom and reducing the size and scope of government.

He is very strong on individual rights.


52 posted on 05/24/2007 6:18:16 PM PDT by TheLion (How about "Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement," for a change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: TheLion
Except his reduction in unilateral. The government still interfers in every sort of moral issue. He just obeys the main stream media on such things, rather than risk having his personal beliefs made into an issue. Which is a simply lack of philosophic confidence or of political courage, or both.
53 posted on 05/24/2007 6:20:21 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
All I can suggest is pray for them. It really does work miracles!

I'm living proof of that!

54 posted on 05/24/2007 6:20:34 PM PDT by airborne (Duncan Hunter is the only real choice for honest to goodness conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I was explaining why campaigns are not as blunt and plain spoken as they were in America’s past.

LOL! Ok, wow I really drove that one over the cliff, didn't I?...sorry!

Plain spoken...Remember, McPainintheass' Straight Talk Express? Whadda joke!!!

55 posted on 05/24/2007 6:22:51 PM PDT by sirchtruth (No one has the RIGHT not to be offended...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde; VegasBaby
I plan to govern only with the interests of people like me in mind. If you are gay, black or a woman, well you can go to hell.

How is being black or a woman the same as engaging in aberrant behavior?

56 posted on 05/24/2007 6:24:00 PM PDT by jdm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: WestSylvanian
"I’m with you, VegasBaby. I’m sure there are gays who are good Republicans and good Americans. The VP’s daughter is probably one of them."

Well, well, well, thank you for raising an interesting point! According to the vibe I'm getting in this thread, Dick Cheney would make a horrid president!!! He's obviously not anti-gay unless those photos I saw of him and his wife lovingly holding their new grandchild (who's mother happens to be a LESBIAN) yesterday were a total joke. Maybe people would be much happier if the Cheneys were to cut off all association with their daughter and her demon child! /sarcasm

57 posted on 05/24/2007 6:24:04 PM PDT by VegasBaby (Ready for a 113% average yearly ROI? Romney in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: f150sound
Another win for the gay agenda. If a snake oil cultist says he's not anti-gay he's admitting he respects the lifestyle.

The logical conclusion anyone can draw is that he would have no problem supporting pro gay policies. The logical next step to coming out and saying you're not anti-gay is capitulating to the gay agenda because if you're not anti-gay, why would you discriminate?

Your comments are so rooted in ignorance of real-life politics I don't know how to begin responding. Suffice to say that your "logical conclusion" is on its face illogical. You can't name a single viable candidate who would say "I'm anti-gay" in this day and age. I defy you to name such a candidate. The closest you could probably get to that is Alan Keyes, and he's neither a viable candidate nor is running this time around.

At least you would have been honest if you had just left your anti-Romney sneer at calling him a "snake oil cultist." But you didn't. Now, you just seem like a doofus.

58 posted on 05/24/2007 6:24:34 PM PDT by L.N. Smithee (MSNBC : Morons Spew Nothing But Crap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheLion; Old_Mil
He is very strong on individual rights.

The individual's right to break convention and march down the street as a gay minor, okay, I can see that, and grudgingly agree. It's society's job to discourage homosexuality, not government. BUT ...

Romney used the government to endorse a Gay Youth Pride event. Any politician who believes that the government has a role in the declared sexual orientation of minors, isn't a Republican.

59 posted on 05/24/2007 6:24:52 PM PDT by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, safety and success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: f150sound

could he say he’s pro-hetero? :)


60 posted on 05/24/2007 6:26:00 PM PDT by isom35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: f150sound

Ever since the Pope failed to endorse JFK it seems that morality has become ever more a personal issue and not a social concept or tenet with presidential campaigners.

I’m not anti-antigay but I’m not pro-gay either; actually I think of it more as an issue of what’s in your wardrobe than whether you spend your time in the closet.

But I don’t hate bigots, some of my best friends are prejudiced.


61 posted on 05/24/2007 6:31:08 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

The point is no matter what you think of someone you can’t govern them differently than anyone else. That is what our government has been striving for since its inception.


62 posted on 05/24/2007 7:09:02 PM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You remember my guitar? That is where it gently weeps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

Comment #63 Removed by Moderator

To: JasonC

He attacks the media, and other candidates and people like Al Sharpton all the time, when they are out of line. He does not get his guidance from polls and the media. You must be very unfamiliar with Romney and post this tripe to take a swipe at him.


64 posted on 05/24/2007 7:37:18 PM PDT by TheLion (How about "Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement," for a change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: TheLion

Why not say it a *little more tactfully* as in “I am against homosexuality (and the enshrining of it as protected behavior/it is dangerous, under law), but I respect them as people”?

Instead Romney chose to be Politically correct, and only become conservative on “homosexual marriage”, but he doesn’t really represent Christian’s views when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, and giving them special rights!@ I presume this will draw away A TON of Christian voters from his camp, if known about as well I don’t trust a man that flip-flopps on so many issues so easily..


65 posted on 05/24/2007 8:41:09 PM PDT by JSDude1 (www.pence08.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Moog63

Really? Never knew there was such as “war” nor that you gays had won it!? I highly doubt that it will be acceptable (and forced acceptance on us who disagree) becuase a sin is a choice, now temptation is another thing, I will give that it is a temptation, but choosing the act is a sin. I also know that it may not always be “fully chosen to be tempted” but that has its result in 1) the sin of others upon the wounded individual, 2) their own sexual sins and worship of their own desire as an idol over God!

Look the big thing is we as Christians should realize that per the scripture where Paul said “idoloters, effiminate, ect” such WERE some of you! I don’t believe gays are beyond HOPE. I believe that God (not me) can forgive them, and change them.

Gays only problem when it comes to Christians is when talking about public policy; they try to FORCE “acceptance” of their behavior (homosexuality) upon us whom disagree with them (per the 1st Amendment)..which I would say stems from God or the freedom He has given to mankind!


66 posted on 05/24/2007 8:49:45 PM PDT by JSDude1 (www.pence08.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: TheLion
Opportunistically attacking pols for the popularity of their opinions is not the same as taking a stand that morality is not optional or situational or personal, and that X or Y is morally wrong, absolutely, and should not be tolerated.
67 posted on 05/24/2007 9:04:47 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Moog63

“As for the bible...have at it...just give respect to those who excercise the right guaranteed to them in that thing called the Constitution to believe something else. The war against gay is over. “


Reading your week long posting history reveals a pretty hostile attitude.

This being a social conservative site, you will probably have many opportunities to argue the gay power, anti-god agenda.


68 posted on 05/24/2007 9:26:12 PM PDT by ansel12 ((America, love it ,or at least give up your home citizenship before accepting ours too.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Moog63
God, I am SO tired of the “war of the gay agenda”

I am sure God would recommend you gain some knowledge and reevaluate your position -I myself suggest you go back to DU until that happens...

69 posted on 05/24/2007 9:32:48 PM PDT by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: f150sound
Ah, the old "I'm personally opposed, but..." Now where have I heard that before....

Oh, that's right! John F. Kerry!
70 posted on 05/24/2007 9:34:42 PM PDT by Antoninus (P!ss off an environmentalist wacko . . . have more kids.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: f150sound

You are a distorter and religious bigot!


71 posted on 05/24/2007 9:38:42 PM PDT by restornu (True Christian Soldiers Are More Than Weekend Warriors! ~ "Mitt Romney 08")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
"He believes morality should be a strictly private affair. He is for the separation of morality and state."

I don't see the word "morality" or "morals" anywhere in the Constitution. I think it's wrong to confuse what the government does with anything that's moral. We might wish that what government would do would be to make laws that are informed by morality as we see it, but I think that's really way too much to hope for.

We don't elect philosopher-kings. We just elect politicians. If we're really lucky, we'll have on the ballot somebody who can beat Hillary. I'll be thankful enough for that. I'm not going to get picky, quibbling over stuff that's not even mentioned in the Constitution.
72 posted on 05/24/2007 10:40:26 PM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: omnivore
There's also the idea of render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. We're picking a Caesar, not a god. We're picking a guy to collect the taxes and run the military. We're not picking a moral arbiter. Don't overcomplicate the problem and wish for things you'll never get.

Just my humble opinion. The MSM is baiting Romney to see if he'll step in it on some PC issue they can bash him with. Who cares what he answers on a question like this, it's the MSM's game, it's like some carney sideshow designed to entertain suckers.
73 posted on 05/24/2007 10:47:39 PM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: omnivore

“Just my humble opinion.”

You can tell what is important to the voters by how the candidates run, and most American candidates have always run as a man of faith, that will not let us down spiritually.

The winner of this next election will do the same whether they are Dem. or Rep.

You have a real uphill battle to fight, to turn America to your rare and unusual take on American elections, and what they should become about.


74 posted on 05/24/2007 11:05:41 PM PDT by ansel12 ((America, love it ,or at least give up your home citizenship before accepting ours too.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: VegasBaby

“So if a judge is a constructionalist and happens to be gay, that disqualifies him/her from the bench? Personally I would take a gay constructionalist judge over a straight liberal judge any day of the week.”

Your dancing on the head of a pin aside, the judge Romney appointed was a left-wing homosexual activist from the board of the Gay & Lesbian Bar Association who had been active in promoting homosexual “marriage” in Mass.


75 posted on 05/25/2007 12:28:47 AM PDT by AFA-Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: f150sound
Ann Coulter said the same thing.

COULTER: And of course, if you're working for a Republican candidate, you'll meet some nice heterosexual guys. By the way, before I let that slide, I do want to point out one thing that has been driving me crazy with the media, how they keep describing Mitt Romney's position as being "pro-gays, and that's going to upset right-wingers." Well, you know, screw you, I'm not anti-gay. We're against gay marriage. I don't want gays to be discriminated against. I mean, I think we have, in addition to blacks, I don't know why all gays aren't Republicans. I think we have the pro-gay position, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money, and they're victims of crime. I mean, the way -- no, they are. They should be with us. But the media portrays us. If they could get away with it, they would start saying, you know, "Mitt Romney, he's pro-civil rights, and that's going to upset conservatives." No. OK. Sorry, go ahead."

76 posted on 05/25/2007 3:30:32 AM PDT by Rameumptom (Gen X= they killed 1 in 4 of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: f150sound

Does this mean that Romney is PRO-GAY?


77 posted on 05/25/2007 3:31:09 AM PDT by expatguy (http://laotze.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: f150sound

Bottom line: Homosexuality is a sin.

I’m not voting for someone who doesn’t take a stand against evil, and Romney proved that he won’t take a stand against perversion. He’s not getting my vote.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Love the person enough to speak the Truth.


78 posted on 05/25/2007 5:31:12 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan
"Your dancing on the head of a pin aside, the judge Romney appointed was a left-wing homosexual activist from the board of the Gay & Lesbian Bar Association who had been active in promoting homosexual “marriage” in Mass."

I am, am I? Let me put things into perspective for you. The judge in question was at the district court level and not the highest state court. Once the nomination was made by Romney, it had to be approved by the Governor's Council, where 8 of the 9 seats were Democrats and were elected, not appointed by Romney--in an overwhelmingly liberal state like MA, that's not hard to figure. Furthermore, a Boston Glove article in 2005 had this to say about the appointment in question:

"Romney won praise in the legal community when he replaced regional judicial nominating committees that were viewed as politically tainted with a centralized Judicial Nominating Commission. The commission considers applicants using a ”blind” first phase of the selection process that removes names from applications in an attempt to ensure the candidates will be judged on their merits. In addition, all of Romney’s nominees have been submitted to a Joint Bar Committee on Judicial Nominations, which rates candidates as qualified, well-qualified, or unqualified — and each has been found to be either qualified or well-qualified."

So do you disqualify an openly gay judge at the district court level who proves that he is tough on crime and is well-qualified for the job?

Lets look at the gay appointee judge a little more closely, shall we? Stephen S. Abany was appointed as an “Associate Justice,” the lowest rung at the district court level and guess what? He was not even a registered Democrat (despite the false claim I've seen here at FR saying otherwise). An associate justice at the district court level is going to have little if any influence whatsoever on the gay marriage issue.

So the issue then becomes what Romney would do at the higher court level where issues of activism have a much more significant impact. The same Boston Globe article had a very interesting quote on the matter:

"Peter Vickery, one of the Democrats on the Governor’s Council, says he believes Romney and Moore would seek far more conservative jurists if a vacancy were to pop up on the Supreme Judicial Court, which delivered the gay marriage decision that Romney has routinely blasted.

Some of Romney’s nominees do have stellar Republican or conservative bona fides. For example, Romney’s pick for Peabody clerk magistrate, Kevin L. Finnegan, is a former two-term Republican state representative. Another choice was Bruce R. Henry, the son-in-law of former SJC Justice Joseph Nolan — whom Romney wanted to represent his administration in seeking a stay of the court’s gay marriage ruling."

Hmm, very interesting. It sounds pretty likely that Romney knows where the real battle lies when it comes to protecting traditional marriage (i.e. the higher courts).

I would also suggest that you take a look at the following article:

http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Br&article_code=2486&PHPSESSID=9f36894422768feb9d0

It seems that Romney has a record of booting out gay activist judges, would it not? After all, that's your main concern, right? Let's take a look at a couple more Romney quotes on the matter:

Romney: ”Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature’s job to pass laws. . . . While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage.” (Wall Street Journal op-ed, Feb. 5, 2004)

Romney: ”The real threat to the states is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage in order to impose their will on the states, and on the whole nation. At this point, the only way to reestablish the status quo ante is to preserve the definition of marriage in the federal Constitution before courts redefine it out of existence.” (Testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee, June 22, 2004)

Romney knows where the real dangers lie in the court system. He has a law degree from Harvard. He gets it.

79 posted on 05/25/2007 7:04:16 AM PDT by VegasBaby (Ready for a 113% average yearly ROI? Romney in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz
Bottom line: Homosexuality is a sin.

I’m not voting for someone who doesn’t take a stand against evil, and Romney proved that he won’t take a stand against perversion. He’s not getting my vote.

It's also a sin to have other Gods before you but I doubt Romney is going to condemn all the non-Christian Americans as evil or seek to give them second-class citizenship.

Is homosexuality the only sin that counts anymore?

80 posted on 05/25/2007 8:07:53 AM PDT by Millers Cave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan

I also would add this to the fray...I find it extremely interesting that Romney’s been pretty open and straightforward, both in words and actions, that he is against discrimination—even against gays—is staunchly against judicial activism, and is against gay marriage, yet the Mass Resistance people and certain posters here on FR are more than willing to continue providing the reader with falacies and half-truths (such as the ones I pointed out to you) about Romney’s judicial appointments in order to portray him as part of some vast gay advocacy agenda.

To that, I would simply ask who the real deceivers are here.


81 posted on 05/25/2007 9:33:45 AM PDT by VegasBaby (Ready for a 113% average yearly ROI? Romney in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: omnivore
Men without morality are barbarians, and not fit to lead or make laws for civilized men. It isn't optional, it is a minimum of decency required of responsible adults.

And it is evaporating daily.

82 posted on 05/25/2007 1:44:11 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Millers Cave
Is homosexuality the only sin that counts anymore?

It's currently the loudest, and by spreading aids, the most expensive. Once the gays are fully established, they will turn and begin a fierce persecution of Christians.

83 posted on 05/25/2007 2:45:16 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Ah, the old "I'm personally opposed, but..." Now where have I heard that before....

Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich?

Seems most conservatives can tell the difference between the sin and the sinner.

Seems most conservatives can oppose gay marriage and special rights for gays, but still oppose hatred and discrimination against gays.

For instance, Reagan, Newt and Romney have all have shown that they are not anti-gay.

Best-selling conservative author Dinesh D'Souza writes in his biography of Reagan, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader, a biography highly praised by Rush Limbaugh, Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley and P.J. O'Roarke. D'Souza writes, "Reagan's views on homosexuality were not entirely compatible with those of his evangelical Christian supporters or with those of the gay rights community. Before he became President, he once confessed his belief that homosexuality is a 'tragic illness'...Yet, as we might expect, Reagan knew lots of gays in Hollywood, and he and his wife socialized with people who were avowedly homosexual. Reagan did not support state-sponsored discrimination against homosexuals as a group." Reagan Not Anti-gay.

___________________________________

Reagan, Newt and Romney all oppose gay marriage, but they find it counter-productive to discriminate or act hateful towards gays.

Here's an old interview with Newt where he expresses approval for the same tolerance that Mitt and Reagan endorsed.

Newt Gingrich (G):

L: Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin?

G: I think you have to. But, I also believe that all of us are sinners.

L: Well, but some folk’s do work a little harder at their sin than others, don’t they?

G: Yeah, but I’m just saying that I don’t want to be judgmental about others. I think that the —-

L: But we are talking about homosexuality. Scripture is very clear —- it’s an abomination to God.

G: That’s right. And that’s why I just agreed with you. I think that if you believe in the Bible, then it’s fairly clear. But, I’m not prepared to render judgment to individuals.

~Snip~ L: Well, my thinking was something like that if people are homosexuals, that tells us something about their character and we care about the character —-

G: I don’t agree with that.

L: Oh, I see. Why do you think God calls it an abomination if it says nothing about their character?

G: I think there are many good and kind and decent people who may also be homosexuals.

L: Really?

G: Yes.

L. My goodness.

G: And you live in a very narrow world if you’ve never met one.

~~Snip~~

Newt Not Anti-gay Either.

______________________________________

Just because you oppose discrimination does not mean you are for special rights for the gays or support a pro-homosexual agenda. Ask Ann Coulter.

84 posted on 05/25/2007 3:25:19 PM PDT by redgirlinabluestate (MittReport.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: redgirlinabluestate

” “Reagan’s views on homosexuality were not entirely compatible with those of his evangelical Christian supporters or with those of the gay rights community. Before he became President, he once confessed his belief that homosexuality is a ‘tragic illness’...Yet, as we might expect, Reagan knew lots of gays in Hollywood, and he and his wife socialized with people who were avowedly homosexual. “

That describes me and most conservatives and Christians.

I have, and have had since my teen years, many homosexual and lesbian friends. I have been the experiment guy for lesbians and been best friends with homosexual men, and among the closet friends of more than one lesbian, but these are the types of people that are simply homosexual, they are not members of the “Gay Power” movement.

Like Reagan and his friends, these people know my politics and views, but there are parts of our personal lives that we don’t confront each other with in the normal course of our friendship.

Masculine gays respect the straight space of their straight friends, just as lesbians often respect certain men.

Effeminate gays, well just about everyone enjoys them, my experience is that most people are fine with “Gays”, it is the “Gay Power” movement that brings out the necessary resistance to the “tragic illness”, and it’s self destructive drive that can bring down the greater culture.

If Reagan came out against that bill to ban homosexual teachers in California, well, I would like to see the details (of the bill), but the main point is that it does not put Reagan in the column of supporting the Gay Power agenda.


85 posted on 05/25/2007 7:55:40 PM PDT by ansel12 ((America, love it ,or at least give up your home citizenship before accepting ours too.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: f150sound
NO way in hell I’d vote for someone like that.

HE’S part of the cultural decay as far as I am concerned.

86 posted on 05/26/2007 8:28:23 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

I have it on good authority that you have some information that states gays don’t exactly allow AGE to be a barrier to molestation. Could you e-mail me some links on that or post it here for the terminally confused by choice.


87 posted on 05/26/2007 8:29:48 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

Some people just don’t want to see the “gay agenda”.

It’s sickening.


88 posted on 05/26/2007 8:32:58 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: f150sound

I AM ANTI-GAY!

It’s perversion.

I don’t like perversion.

Perversion is WRONG.

To not have the courage to state this is sickening and cowardly.


89 posted on 05/26/2007 8:34:08 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: f150sound

The Lord loves all of his children even if he is not pleased with their actions!

It is people like you who don’t allow for healing to take place you always want to keep things in a turmoil.

Thank the Lord that SSA was not one of your trials here on earth!


90 posted on 05/27/2007 6:42:24 AM PDT by restornu (True Christian Soldiers Are More Than Weekend Warriors! ~ "Mitt Romney 08")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh

you know nothing!


91 posted on 05/27/2007 6:44:21 AM PDT by restornu (True Christian Soldiers Are More Than Weekend Warriors! ~ "Mitt Romney 08")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: f150sound

92 posted on 05/27/2007 6:58:50 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper (It looks like one of those days when one nuke is just not enough-- Lt. Col. Mitchell, SG-1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: restornu
“you know nothing!”

LOL!

I repeat:

I AM ANTI-GAY!

It’s perversion.

I don’t like perversion.

Perversion is WRONG.

To not have the courage to state this is sickening and cowardly.

And add:

YOU don’t speak for me and show YOU know NOTHING!

I also don’t sympathize with perversion.

93 posted on 05/27/2007 7:54:10 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: nmh
You are viewing this short sighted!

Yes there are those with agenda like in California.

California State Senate Passes Transsexual-Bisexual-Homosexual Indoctrination Bill

All through the 80's we had NEA agenda in the schools who was seducing for the last 20 years many of young boys & girls today many are bi sexual or confused.

Remember what Clinton did for oral sex and our young people also the condoning of masturbation etc.

We have inherited this break down and indifference!

Many parents failed to guard their children so many today are crippled spiritually.

Which should not be lump in with the hard core abomination?

Many commit suicide because they feel there is no hope!

To condemn a people in one swoop as a public official is irresponsible.

We should all be thankful that this is not our refiner’s fire in life, and have mercy on those who have the trial and trying to over come it!

IMHO

94 posted on 05/27/2007 8:45:19 AM PDT by restornu (True Christian Soldiers Are More Than Weekend Warriors! ~ "Mitt Romney 08")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Finny

Those freaks that dress up in gay pride parades are just the most extreme members of the gay community. They probably dont even represent 1% of it. Howeverwhenever there is a thread about homos you get pictures of them posted as if they are representative of gays in general. Most gays do not fit stereotypes, are masculine, dress normally and generally conform to gender norms apart from their sexual behavior. Most pretty much keep to themselves are modest people and dont push their sexuality on others. I dont think its right that a whole group of people should be judged by how the most extreme members in the group act. Homosexual activists make up only a tiny percentage of all gays, a lot dont even agree with the agenda or want gay marriage. I dont think just being a homosexual makes someone immoral either because we are all sinners and homosexuality is no worse of a sin than any other and yes it is a sin. It is the behavior though that is the sin and not the mere attraction and it is the mere attraction which makes someone a homosexual. They can be a homosexual and have never of commited a homosexual act in their life.


95 posted on 06/06/2007 3:59:36 PM PDT by timco77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-95 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