Skip to comments.Homosexual activists, GOProud attack Jim DeMint: "Trying His Best to Make Alvin Greene Look Sane"
Posted on 10/06/2010 6:58:08 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
click here to read article
“and unmarried sexually active female teachers”
IF he actually said this, he’s lost my vote.
So the “conservative” flying faggots are after DeMint now. Who’d of thunk it.
They twisted DeMint’s words. How in the world would elementary kids in a classroom even know if a lady was sexually active? It would never come up. On the other hand, if an unrepentant homosexual is telling his kids about the night he had with Bruce at the bathouse, that is totally inappropriate.
I’d like to know what he actually said. He may have said something about unmarried, visibly pregnant teachers. When I was on a school board, we had a single, pregnant teacher who actually discussed with her elementary students that it was “no big deal,” and “lots of people did it.” To my mind, that was a problem, but our hands were tied by various anti-discrimination laws.
If someone tells you he wants less government, and claims to be a liberal, ask him about gun control. If he claims to be a conservative, ask about gay marriage.
For the recored, how does Senator DeMint feel about hiring sexually active unmarried MALE teachers???
For the record (no. 2), I am a marreid male.
He didn’t. He said unwed pregnant women
Why? Teachers having sexual relations with students doesn’t alarm you?
Want some good advice? Find out what Demint actually said. And BTW, you endorse homo marriage?
So this is GOProuds spin?
Before long, the only group excluded by a “morals clause” in this country will be practicing Christians.
"IF he actually said this, hes lost my vote.
The only way "anyone would learn of an unmarried sexually active female teacher" is if she bragged about it.
If you want a socialist running things in DC, that's your business. But to use that excuse is quite pathetic.
WTF are they so proud of?
People who believe in limited government would support the weeding out of all teachers from the government payroll.
DR, Christopher Barron is a former Log Cabiner. This GOProud is an off-shoot of the LGR. Think of them as the Weather Underground splintering off from SDS back in the 60s.
"We are a gay organization, we only work on gay issues, we have never claimed otherwise. My God people." -- Christopher Barron
One cannot realize smaller government without morality, unless anarchy is one’s goal. Those who are controlled from within, by the Spirit of God and conscience, need not be controlled from without, and are better helpers of those who are in genuine need.
Consider how much the sexual revolution as well as other manifestations of rejection of basic Biblical morality has cost America, and gave government a reason to grow. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html
And sexual active teachers are hardly the type of persons who are likely to train up a child in the way he/she should go, and some think that means going to bed with students.
When it comes to education, the number one goal of ALL conservatives — gay, straight, sexually active, sexually impotent, pregnant or otherwise — should be the immediate defunding and shutting down of the Department of Education.
And Jim DeMint should know that. And that’s what he should be talking about.
He’s a US Senator. He shouldn’t concern himself with local school-board affairs.
Shut down the Department of Education. Board it up. Fire all its employees. That’s what DeMint should be working on.
Oh really? Why is that?
This was posted (not this specific article) the other nite and it turns out that these remarks were made in EARLY 2000+ and NOT recently.
Best comment: If he said this he doesn’t get my vote! WHAAAAHHHHH!
“They have the right to be miserable, the same as the rest of us.” -Kinky Friedman.
I don’t endorse it; I just think we have bigger problems, like illegal immigrants, Muslim terrorists, a economy in the pits, and a president who has no clue.
At the risk of getting people mad, I will point out that in 1978, California voters were presented with Proposition 6, to ban gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools.
The initative was doing very well, and was on it’s way to passage.
Then Ronald Reagan came out strongly against it. Even though he knew he needed conservative support for his run for the Presidency, he stood on his principles, and threw his support against the amendment.
On November 1st, Ronald Reagan wrote an editorial. In it he said:
Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.
I realise that many people today don’t feel the same way. Nor do I believe that citing Ronald Reagan should change people’s opinion. However, hopefully this will at least tone down the attacks on those who agree with Ronald Reagan as liberals or RINOs.
Yup. Either theirs or the author’s spin
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
This is very courageous of DeMint. Anyone who objects is basically saying "We want sluts for teachers!" or, "Character means Squat!"
Used to be that teachers were considered role models and had to be of good character as well as knowing their subjects to qualify. Since children spend more hours a week with teachers than with their parents, it's rational to want teachers of good moral character influencing our children.
Bravo, Jim DeMint!
I also support barring “openly gay’ teachers, at the very least from 8th grade and below.
I was dissappointed in the idea of kicking women out of teaching jobs if they kept their children, but allowing them to stay if they aborted. It seems rather backwards. Of course, this wasn’t DeMint’s position, but some freepers argued the point.
DeMint seemed to be against women who both had sex, had a child, and were actively living with a boyfriend.
You can always ping me, too!
Barron is lying. DeMint did say he wants to eliminate the Dept. of Education. Barron is a militant homosexual activist so 'nuff said.
The queer agenda is far clearer now than it was in 1978.
Most obvious: should "tom-cat" jocks be entrusted with coaching high-school cheerleaders, basketball or soft-ball teams?
What's the difference between this and allowing openly gay advocates the same intimacy with same-sex adolescents and pre-adolescents?
More to the point: many gays claim that their inclinations are not any matter of choice,but genetics defining their orientation. Yet I have seen an openly gay man fall deeply in love with a woman. I don't know of her prior history.
Now: I have been led to believe that a significant number of gays engage in sex with minors-- not all, but in greater percentages than among heterosexual. If the Gay lifestyle isn't a conscience choice,as I've so often heard claimed, then how can pederasty differ? How do you explain the statistical divergence of its occurrence between homo- and heterosexuals?
To my mind pederasty is loathsome, despicable, heinous because it is exploitative-- regardless from which side it emerges. I have gay friends and know that they share my disgust.
Nevertheless, my understanding-- and I may be misinformed-- is that there is a stronger co-relation between 'gays' and this than among us 'straights.'
Yes, I'm aware of the historical precedents of child-brides and such over the last 200 years, but there were circumstances different from present ones.
This is a question, not a statement. I would welcome, with repect, any gay freepers' reply.
Yes, I'm a liberal, which is why I'm a conservative.
So a militant homosexual activist who promotes the lie that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change is accusing someone else of being morally reprehensible? What a freaking joke. Bad joke. The way to curb teen "gays" from committing suicide is to tell them the truth - that the "gay" life kills, and there is hope - there are organizations that help them leave the "gay" life, and they are NOT born that way.
Herein lies the rub! In our fervor to defeat the left, how much of the “center” can we admit?
Fiscal conservatives cast a wide net.
Social conservatives start excluding based on their doctrinal hot buttons.
My dilemma is that all conservatives have a sense of right and wrong. From whence does that derive? If there is no God, there is no such thing a right and wrong, only moral relativism; we are no different than our opponents.
Au contraire, it is clear that the leftist militant non-conservative GOProud and other like homo-nazis want to divide Republicans so that their agenda and not the conserative agenda will prevail.
See pissant’s comment above. He said pregnant unmarried teachers.
And note my comment above as well. Used to be that teachers had to be of good character.
Things seemed to work back then.
I think Reagan may say something differently today, 40 years later.
To find out a well concealed secret 40 years ago and not fire the person, was one thing, but today when a homosexual teacher can parade it, speak out on it, flaunt it, choose lessons that incorporate it, and flaunt memberships and affiliations on his car and basically be a salesmen for homosexuality and the homosexual political agenda, Reagan might be open to another view from parents.
There was IIRC two threads lately wherein DeMint said that the Dept. of Ed. among others should be eliminated.
Barron is a lying militant homosexual activist scumbag.
Actually, homosexuality is “contagious” - no one is born homosexual, most are recruited by being molested when they are young.
If Reagan saw what the homosexual agenda was up to now, he’d change his veiwpoint I am sure.
He DID say it. Later he said he should never have made public his private thoughts.
What I want to know is what he thinks about "sexually active MALE teachers". Can they be sexually active, but not females?
Moderate Repubs lose elections. That’s the simple truth. Going wobbly on social issues guarantees losses.
He said single pregnant teachers.
Well, obviously, that's a completely different question - a horse of a different color. I should think he would see the difference.
Why would he have an issue with sexually active females, but not male?
And, in saying that, I am assuming the original comment was accurate.
Better to stand for the truth and go down fighting.
Without a true north what good is a compass?
That is not the ONLY way someone would learn it. Having lived in a small town for a very short period of time, the neighbors may notice activity that they don't condone.
And what about sexually active males?
That is a horse of a different stripe. The original post apparently did not quote accurately.
And, as I have pointed out, DeMint has regretted it.
Okay, how about male teachers who have impregnated female teachers but refuse or have not married them?
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.