Posted on 07/12/2012 4:40:41 AM PDT by scottjewell
The southwest Minneapolis suburbs of Minnetonka and Eden Prairie bring to mind Garrison Keillor's tales from Lake Wobegon: They're lined with well-maintained homes and tree-lined roundabouts, and home to residents of largely German and Scandinavian ancestry. But the ladies of these towns have quietly begun a revolt -- one fought with rainbow flags and a Minnesota nice attitude.
The women, mostly in their 40s and 50s, come from different political parties, religious views, and backgrounds, but they've united to fight what many of them call an embarrassment to Minnesota: a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage that will appear on the ballot this November. Minnesota is the 31st state to include such a measure on a ballot, despite a strong LGBT community in Minneapolis, which was named the "gayest city in America" by Advocate Magazine in January 2011.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
More like RINOs who are desperate to be “accepted” in the New World Order, and who actually buy into the leftist notion that only change agents are “enlightened”. They’re people insecure in their principles and thus easily led astray.
They see God’s Law as The Ten Suggestions.
HOMOSEXUAL: Because there’s nothing “GAY” about it!
I’ve found that they 1 don’t have any principles (other than standard leftist dogma and work being their “god”), and second they really don’t like God’s law.
“HOMOSEXUAL: Because there’s nothing “GAY” about it!”
True. Gay is a lot quicker to type, though. ;) Moreover, “gay” and “lgbtq” have become to me even more sick and stigmatizing, as both depict so well that whole smug, liberal, politically correct mind-set. To me “homosexual” sounds like a lonely man back in the 1950s. “Gay” conjures up images of obnoxious Pride parades, leering and smug smiles, every form of silly lie about equality, and tons of “straight” decadents who have “embraced the rainbow”: In short, “gay” = the whole stale, senile, past its prime political agenda.
And they are almost all to a woman unmarried and live alone in tiny houses with fifty cats.
Propoganda is how it happened. People with brains don’t buy into it. Next time they bring up gay is good tell them they should try it and get back to you.
Worse, they equate the biblical exhortation to care for one another to mean “endorse any whim that blows in the door.” Compassion doesn’t include enabling — by action or inaction — behavior that will rob you of your soul.
“I am white, but have dated a few black women. I have one lady friend, who would feel more comfortable if I was gay and had a boyfriend, than to know I dated a black woman.”
So she is both racist and pro-homosexualist? If you “dated” a black male, would she be OK with it?
Once when watching HGTV or TLC with my sisters, I jokingly called one of the designers a "froot-loop." Perhaps I should have been more tactful, but her reaction was extreme! She curled up into a fetal position, began sobbing and called me a "racist bigot". She stormed out of the room in tears, yelling how she couldn't believe what a racist I was. My two other sisters followed her in support.
Besides the stupidity of my sister not knowing the definition of racism, the ironic part was that the television dandy was as pale as Pantone Color #11-0602 Snow White and our family is of Dominican descent, ranging from caramel to light beige. Not that the racial aspect matters anyway, but...what the heck was she thinking? Homosexuality is not a race, but that's what "youngsters" believe.
Mind control is a frightening thing, and when the schools, media, corporations, politicians, and wealthy philanthropists get behind an agenda, it's almost impossible to fight it.
Luther intensely disliked Jews who didn’t convert to his preaching :) He was very German in that respect that he was nice, but if he became bad, he became very bad — he disliked Catholics, Zwinglist, Calvinists, peasants etc. — but he was no anti-semite. A Jew who converted to Luther’s way of thinking was a-ok :)
But, boy, was I surprised and disgusted with the changes in the genre. Sure, you'll still find a typical romance about a gorgeous billionaire who falls in love with a plain, virginal secretary and they live happily ever after.
But the other books...I won't go into extreme details on what's popular in the genre, but one-man/one-woman human romances are just a slice of what's out there. Vampires, werewolves, demons, half-human/half-beast heroes are nothing. And never mind about that insipid BDSM lite "Shades of Gray" trilogy. The stuff that's really up-and- coming in romance--the books that older women are buying in droves--are the multi-partner "love stories" with one woman and as many men as she can take on at once, or what the heck, they all take on each other.
But even worse, the real big deal in romance are the books written by women for women with no heroine in the "love story." It's just men on men (on men on men). WTF?
It's bizarre, and I feel like the soldier hero in Haldeman's "The Forever War." I don't recognize where I am anymore.
Remember how popular Brokeback Mountain was despite Conservatives predicting it would be a box office bomb? It wasn't the homos that made that movie a success. It was women who loved it (like my sister who dragged her hipster husband to watch!).
So just like the soap operas of 30-20 years ago turned housewives into tolerant supporters of homosexuality, now modern "romances" are enticing lonely women into thinking homo "romances" are "beautiful" and "sexy." Basically, some women have turned into gay men and that's why they're on the same agenda.
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.