Posted on 12/18/2010 11:33:01 AM PST by Jim Robinson
When they do it, it is ok. It is wrong only when the other guy does it.
***********************************
So it appears.
Has anyone here, on Free Republic, implied that sodomy laws should be enforced generally; just exclusivly INSIDE of the military? Where are those type posts? Nobody here gives a rats ass about what your family and friends do to get their jollies, don't flatter yourself. Jim's beef is with the 'agenda' which takes it to the public arena.
What term do you prefer for behaving like a barnyard animal? If not sodomy, what?
Andy, don’t be too hard on central_va. I think he’s just fed up with all the gays who are attracted to him.
The perspective I'm coming from is that I believe we must differentiate between the personal and the political.
I oppose the radical homosexual agenda the same as most (if not all) of you. I don't want it promoted as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle, not in our schools and certainly not with our tax dollars. I don't want to be forced to witness public indecency because gays are given "accredited victim status" and are thus provided license to do things heterosexuals would be arrested for doing.
But I also recognize that people are entitled to privacy as regards their own consensual, personal behavior. Also, those gay people I do know (there are a number) are not anything like those you see on television. They are discrete and unobtrusive and do not demand my approval of their lifestyle. That, I can live with. They are also funny and warm and nice people - not sex-crazed addicts. That, I can also live with.
I had no problem with Jim's original post. None. I did not care for the tone of some of the commentary that came afterward, as it contained language and exchanges that, in my opinion, crossed the line between the political and personal, and reflected poorly on us as a group. That's all. I really did not intend to get into a fight with anyone, even recognizing that this can be a very emotional issue for some.
Actually we’re fed up with the homosexual agenda and those on FR that support it. Apparently so is Jim hence this thread.
Jim's original posting says "If you advocate for the homosexual agenda, you'll get a zot".
Some posters on this thread have taken the stand that "If you are insufficiently hysterical in your opposition, you deserve a zot."
These two sentences are not the same thing.
Yeah but there’s something not right about that boy. He seems to squeal with delight anytime someone gets zotted. Only two types of folks that squeal with delight, little girls and queers. Is he a little girl?
With a volunteer Army to attack, the agenda driven gays will purposely join the Army to forward their dirty cause. It happened in the Catholic church, acedemia MSM .etc. With a draft, the numbers of gay recruits will reflect reality, in that less than 5% will be gay. I am not paranoid, this is how the Pink hand™ operates.
Well there you go again, standing up for the honor of your Sodomite friends. I knew that was the reasoning you were on this thread.
You’ve already received a warning from Jim regarding the goals of this site, haven’t you?
They are really starting to crawl out from under the rocks now.....
There are those on FR that support the homosexual agenda.You can give them scientific studies etc and they will continually defend homosexuals and their “rights”. I just took a break from FR because one can get VERY fed up and angry with those that wear blinders. Central_va is fed up too. The point of this thread is that supporting the homosexual agenda is not a conservative viewpoint.
Some are smart enough to only attack posters instead of opinions.
As a matter of fact, I have. If you’d bothered to read my responses you will have also noticed there was nothing with which I was in disagreement. As far as I was concerned the matter was settled. Do you have any reason to bring it up again?
This slime ball isn't worth it. He's shown his colors. He is right about one thing, I will hence forth cheer in private when the 'agenda' defenders get zotted.
"If you called one a “Sodomite” in front of me, I’d put your lights out."
See the word "if"? There it is. Say "Hi!" Make it your friend. And then there's the world "called" . Not in the present tense, but in the conditional tense. Also note the word I'd as in "I would" - also conditional, not present, grammar fans.
It means: this... is... a...hypothetical example.
Hy-po-thet-i-cal. Look it up.
Now IF (cond.) I HAD (cond.) said: "Say that to my face, and I WILL punch your lights out" - THAT would have been a threat.
Based solely on this response I have no problem with what you said. It sounds a lot like my views. I have not read this entire thread and do not intend to.
Whatever your position, I have no problem with what you’ve said directly to me. You don’t need to threaten about the term “sodomite” in my opinion, but maybe them’s fightin words where you come from. I don’t know. They weren’t on the left coast 13 years ago AFAIK.
I don’t hate the sinner, but I DO HATE THE POLITCIAL MOVEMENT THAT EXPLOITS THE SIN. And that movement is MARXISM.
I HATE marxism. Unequivocally. I will fight it to the death if need be.
Guaranteed.
Yes. Your posts on this thread.
It is amazing how effective these threads are in attracting "them", I do it on purpose, I am so obvious in my taunting, yet they still can't keep their fingers off of the keyboard. It is both an incredible and evil thing to behold.
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.