Posted on 10/18/2010 9:10:24 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Are you inferring you do it doggie style with another man?
Is that the reason for your hostility towards my anti-gay sentiments?
Nope. None of your business. If I dress up like Pac-Man and spank my wife with a frozen porkchop while she does unthinkable things with the seatpost off my bicycle, that's my business and not yours.
Do you think that your sexual perversions stay in your bedroom? Do you not think that a million other pervs like yourself take this illness out into the real world?
I suppose next you’ll tell me that if I don’t like porn, don’t watch it.
You are beyond naive - you’re a fool.
I'm certain that my perversions stay in my bedroom. I'm not allowed to wear the Pac-Man outfit at work, and the pork chop won't stay frozen.
Maybe some nice folks like yourself should just make a list of what is and isn't acceptable in the bedroom. I talked to my wife, and we've concluded that we've been doing it in the dark, and someone needs to shed some light here.
Melas, I apologize for my histrionics. But I’m passionate in my fervor against gays and their agendas.
You write.... I’m not allowed to wear the Pac-Man outfit at work, and the pork chop won’t stay frozen.
As you know, the inability to wear Pac-Man outfits at work (code for in-your-face faggotry) is anathema to gays. They’re gonna do it anyway. They’re gonna get laws changed so they can do it. They’re gonna impose their will in our armed forces. And they are going to indoctrinate our schools. Can you say Kevin Kennings is a fisting fool? Sure you can.
The cultural and societal debasement of America began in our bedrooms.
I apologize. I was having fun with you. The question here is what is acceptable in private, what is acceptable in public, and in the case of the former, how much government intrusion is acceptable to uncover it. I greatly fear a government that thinks it has legitimate access to my bedroom, my bathroom, etc. I sure as hell couldn’t support a government that issued a list of acceptable bedroom practices that my wife and I are supposed to follow. It really is none of their business how we do it, why do it, when we do it, etc etc.
To give you a real world example. My father-in-law is a deeply religious man. At one time his church wanted the singles in the church to sign a pledge in petition form to refrain from sex until marriage, which would be displayed somewhere in the church.
Now, he was eighty-something, and having outlived two wives, he was single. Yet, he refused to sign it. By his own admission, he wasn’t even capable of sexual relations, and had even lost the desire years ago, yet he refused to sign. Why? Because it was intrusive. Letting folks know what he wasn’t doing in his bedroom was every bit as invasive as letting folks know what he was doing. It wasn’t anyone’s business, and it didn’t belong on the church wall.
Now you either get that, or you don’t. Me? I get it, and I get it in spades.
I greatly fear a government that thinks it has legitimate access to my bedroom, my bathroom, etc. I sure as hell couldn’t support a government that issued a list of acceptable bedroom practices that my wife and I are supposed to follow. It really is none of their business how we do it, why do it, when we do it, etc etc.
__________________________________________________
And I greatly fear a society that turns such a blind eye to sexual perversions that it actually elects perverts like Clinton, Frank and even Obama to power.
And I understand what you’re saying about government intrusion. But we actually used to have sodomy laws on the books. Remember that? Oh that we could return to days such as those!
These days Europe has passed laws that punish anyone who even dares to speak out against homosexuality.
The US is not far behind.
Learn the definitions of the words “imply” and “infer” you illiterate dimwit.
Psychiatrists call what you’re doing “projection”. I think your hostility comes from your own latent homosexuality.
You are correct....the tenth amendment is a very powerful amendment. The problem is the feds are rendering it moot, with activist judges, and overreaching congress. All items you mentioned in both posts are not the responsibility of the federal government. They are reserved for the states. Since everytime a libertarian speaks, the conservatives always bring up drugs and hookers, lets start there.
The federal government has no role in the war on drugs, other than to protect the borders against illegal importation. They have no business conducting no knock raids. They also have no business overriding a states decision to legalize or not.
Same with hookers. This is a state issue, with the feds having no business interfering with the citizens of the state’s decisions on this matter.
Same with abortion. If all the abortionists want to move to vermont and make roadside abortions legal, the citizens of that state have the right to do so. If texas wants to imprison abortionists, they have the right to do so. The feds have no role in this.
If you take away the hype and bs that is usually spewed during these discussions, you will find that what I stated is true, that the constitution as written pisses off both libs and conservatives.
dhs was national security. so you are against national defense and that was after 9/11.
Part d didn't do anything to medicare . medicare would still be trillions per year without your part d.
That's one bill over 12 years. hardly a pattern but an anomaly an exception and it wasn't anything major like social security or medicare.
Democrats created almost all government agencies .why don't you bash democrats. anyone can cherry pick some stats or records over 12 years and try to paint what they want but that doesn't fool me as I know the exception doesn't disprove the rule. I can go on more about this part D . you use the liberal media lies and not say what it really is but who cares that's only 1 bill over 12 years.
Republicans stopped government healthcare and Amnesty. 2 really big ones. lets talk about obamacare, social security , the EPA all passed by democrat congresses, when democrats controlled Congress.
Social conservatives generally get all bent out of shape about homos.
You're dangerous, and not in a good way. Your fixation on the sexuality of other people is flat-out creepy.
Wow. Your post 93 and 94.
2 pro-homosexual posts in a row.
I’d ask if you are queer, but you would think I’m fixating.
No, I'd think you were trolling for dates.
The only people who think more about queerness than queers themselves are people who wish to bury their own queer feelings under a heap of queer-bashing and moral trumpeting. Based on your fixation on the subject on a place like Free Republic, I estimate you're a member of the latter group. You're probably on the down low and are so ashamed about it you have to flex your intranet muscles and take pot shots at the gays to bolster your feelings of masculinity.
Shameful.
OK up to now, I’m been playing you. Having fun at your expense.
Sorry.
But as I take an intense look at your posts on this thread, I gotta ask. In all seriousness...
Is there any part of the homosexual agenda you object to?
Tell me, please. There’s got to be SOMETHING about the queer agenda that you don’t like.
No they dont. They get bent out of shape about fascists who want to push their perverted morality on everyone in public including our children.
It is your defense of perversion that is not good and is dangerous.
Your charge of a ‘creepy fixation’ in regards to those who oppose having fascists push their perverted sexuality on the public (including our children) flat out shows you to be in support of special pervert rights, imo.
Homos such as the democrat Jim McGreevy are the ones who are creepy. He admitted to lurking around public restrooms looking for homosexual encounters and he probally molested children as well considering these were public restrooms.
Yet you are worried about those who oppose these perverts. Pathetic.
Of course. Albeit I wouldn't know if it were part of some "queer agenda," but I don't cotton to the notion that many of the gays insist they have rights above and beyond those that heteros have, to wit: that committing assault against a gay person is any worse than committing assault against anyone else, thereby making it necessary to invent a whole new class of "hate" crimes; also, homos seem to tend to feel they have some sort of "right" not to be offended.
Quite frankly, though, it seems that you could apply these sort of things to other special interest groups as well. Not just homos.
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.