Santorum Crisis Exposes Republican Weakness

The Pro-Family Law Center ^ | 29-Apr-2003 | Scott Lively

[tdadams]

No, try to pay attention. Lest you forget, I'm referring to your contention in post #102 that we shouldn't be concerned about selective prosecution. If you're not the victim of it, why do you care? That seems a bit cavalier and disingenuous to me. You seem to condone an arbitrary enforcement of the law. That's troubling.

As for homosexuals, I couldn't care less what they do. It's none of my business. I'm not so sure why you make it yours.

[EternalVigilance]

I'm not so sure why you make it yours.

Because they are trying mightily, with my tax dollars, to force their immoral and dangerous lifestyle choices on me, and to indoctrinate my children in it.

Get it?

[tdadams]

Well, I really think it's a matter of perception. If you make your living, or your name in politics, based on fighting a certain boogeyman, you see that boogeyman everywhere.

Personally, I've worked in the entertainment business so consequently I know a few homosexuals. I don't condone their preferences, but neither do I feel the least bit threatened by them. Nor do I think the vast majority of them are pushing the radical agenda. Most of them simply wish to be left alone.

Now I know there may be some who are leftist radicals who push an unacceptable agenda, but let's not judge a whole group of people based on what the most radical and preposterous of them do. God forbid, if conservatives were judged by that standard the left could just as easily paint us all as David Duke and Pat Buchanan.

Get a little perspective won't you? Live and let live. Isn't that what being a free country is all about?

[EternalVigilance]

Get a little perspective won't you? Live and let live. Isn't that what being a free country is all about?

IMO, you are naive concerning the moral, spiritual and physical harm the homosexual agenda can bring on America if we allow it.

[tdadams]

Sorry, I'll have to disagree and say I'm not naive. I find that a bit patronizing to be honest. Can't you conceive that you're simply hysterical?

[steve-b]

I think Msg#153 neatly describes the sort of invincible ignorance you're up against here....

[EternalVigilance]

Is it hysterical to be offended that my tax dollars are being used to indoctrinate my children in behaviors that I consider to be abominable, and which are by any scientific measure destructive to my country and society?

Again, you are naive.

You remind me of those who coo about how Islam is a religion of peace.

Get your head out of the sand, and wake up to the dangers posed by this homosexual drive to force all of us to accept their immorality.

[gdc61]

AWESOME POST ! my sister is a lesbian and these are some of the points i've tried to make, but could never find the right words. thanks

[tdadams]

Is it hysterical to be offended that my tax dollars are being used to indoctrinate my children in behaviors that I consider to be abominable

Isn't your child's moral upbringing your responsibility? You're apparently concerned that some stranger is going to have more influence over your child than you are. That's a sad commentary.

Sorry, I'm not buying your fear mongering. That doesn't make me naive. In fact I think it's highly ironic that someone who presumably wouldn't cross the room to talk to a homosexual can postulate that he has a more all-emcompassing view of the situation.

[EternalVigilance]

Isn't your child's moral upbringing your responsibility?

Yes. That's why I will fight to prevent homosexuals and their enablers from corrupting them.

You're apparently concerned that some stranger is going to have more influence over your child than you are. That's a sad commentary.

Nice straw man.

Sorry, I'm not buying your fear mongering. That doesn't make me naive.

You are oblivous to the dangers faced by an America that has slid so far down into the moral sewer that it will accept sexual deviancy as normal, and in fact celebrate it. If you aren't naive, you are something worse. I was trying to be charitable.

In fact I think it's highly ironic that someone who presumably wouldn't cross the room to talk to a homosexual can postulate that he has a more all-emcompassing view of the situation.

You're right, I wouldn't give a person who is proud of their sin, and flaunts it, much of my time at all. However, my view is based on an understanding of the scripture, in addition to an understanding of what happened to every nation in history that went down the path you promote.

Thankfully, you all are still a very small minority in this country.

[liberalnot]

i get a kick out of these posts!

from having done therapy for years, i tell you the interest in homosexuality is not normal on this forum.

some of these ranters will be coming out of the closet themselves.

just because some people don't like gays, does not mean that they will be leaving. afterall, they've been around forever.

that's the problem with religions--they all discriminate against each other.


santorum and his buds here actually work against the republican party.

president bush will not be taking actions against homosexuals nor against illegals. for one reason, both contribute more to the american economy than most of the whiners here. look at the stats.

[Remedy]

• SODOMY : World AIDS Day: Reflections on the Pandemic

• What Is "A Homosexual" Kinsey reported that those who engaged in homosexuality were exceptionally sexually flexible, intensely sexualized, and highly venturesome. Kinsey's published data reveal that homosexuals are much more willing to "try it" with an animal, a child, a man, many women, or for that matter "something completely different."
• What Homosexuals Say About Homosexuals - Is This Gay Behavior Sick?
• Compared with their heterosexual peers, homosexual men were at greater risk for psychiatric disorders, including mood and anxiety disorders, bipolar disorders, major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorders, panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, and simple phobia. ---Theo G. M. Sandfort, Archives of General Psychiatry Vol. 58, Number . , 2001. Page(s) 85-91. SO MUCH FOR HOMOPHOBIA
• Relationship violence was found to be a significant problem for homosexuals. Forty-four (44) percent of the gay men reported having experienced violence in their relationships; 13 percent reported sexual violence and 83 percent reported emotional abuse. Levels of abuse ran even higher among lesbians: 55 percent reported physical violence in their relationships, 14 percent reported sexual abuse, and 84 percent reported emotional abuse. Susan C. Turrell,Journal of Family Violence Vol. 13, Number . , 2000. Page(s) 281-293.
• Violence and Homosexuality The top six U.S. male serial killers were all gay.
• The median age of death for those who regularly engage in homosexual behavior leaned in the direction of less than 50. The data suggest a "20- to 30-year decrease in lifespan" because of "substantially evelated rates of sexually elevated diseases . . . cancer and heart conditions, and violence among homosexual men and women." Paul Cameron, Psychological Reports,Vol. 83, Number . , 1998. Page(s) 847-866.
• Almost one-third (29.7 percent) of gays and nearly one-half (47.5 percent) of lesbians reported being or having been the victim of relationship violence. In addition, 22 percent of gays and 38 percent of lesbians admitted using violence against their partners. Lisa Walder-Haugrad, Violence and Victims Vol. 12, Number . , 1997. Page(s) 173-184.
• Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do FECAL SEX About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,5 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity--half regularly over 6 months. Result? --the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in...homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A." In 1992,26 it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.

[tdadams]

You are oblivous to the dangers faced by an America that has slid so far down into the moral sewer that it will accept sexual deviancy as normal

It's not that I'm oblivious, I simply reject your definitions. What you see as a moral degredation, I see as neutral, neither moral nor immoral. You want me to agree with you that America faces a great threat from homosexuals. I don't agree. I think America will be just fine.

You have as much of an agenda as the homosexuals you hate.

[EternalVigilance]

You have as much of an agenda as the homosexuals you hate.

Nothing wrong with an agenda, if it promotes the good of the country.

Your moral relativism is better suited to DU than FR.

[tdadams]

Nothing wrong with an agenda, if it promotes the good of the country.

As I said, it's a matter of definitions. I dare say, in a nation of 290 million people, there are quite a few who would disagree with your definition of "good of the country."

Your moral relativism is better suited to DU than FR.

Please, we're having a decent debate here. I didn't think you'd resort to the typical pablum of Freepers who can't make their case by reasoning.

[EternalVigilance]

I was simply stating a fact.

You are, on this issue, a moral relativist.

[EternalVigilance]

As I said, it's a matter of definitions. I dare say, in a nation of 290 million people, there are quite a few who would disagree with your definition of "good of the country."

I'm sure there are far more who agree with me than agree with you...overwhelmingly more.

But of course, right or wrong cannot be decided by a poll.

[tdadams]

You are, on this issue, a moral relativist.

How am I being morally relativist? Was I being equivocal or arbitrary? No. I disagree with you, that doesn't make my opinion relativistic. You're simply using that term as an epithet because you can't make your case.

[tdadams]

I'm sure there are far more who agree with me than agree with you...overwhelmingly more.

You can't convince me of that just by saying so.

But of course, right or wrong cannot be decided by a poll.

Absolutely true. And simply because a majority may agree on something doesn't make it right, like being in the minority doesn't necessarily make one wrong.

[EternalVigilance]

What you see as a moral degredation, I see as neutral, neither moral nor immoral.

Your words, not mine.