Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A question about homosexual agenda for FR -vanity

Posted on 12/21/2010 12:22:53 PM PST by Stourme

I have a question about the homosexual agenda for FR. I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. But I am an employer.

So what I would like is the potential legal argument surrounding homosexual marriage based on these condition.

1. All sex is a choice.
2. Having the desire for another man does NOT mean someone has to engage in sexual acts with that person. Again it's a choice.
3. I do not accept homosexuality as normal. Engaging in homosexual acts shows a decided weakness in someone's character, morals, and judgment.
4. Allowing homosexuals the right to marry would force employers like myself to subsidize this behavior through having to provide benefits and other accommodations to their homosexual partner.
5. I am unwilling to do this.

What is the legal argument that supports my right to not accept homosexual marriage as legitimate?



TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

1 posted on 12/21/2010 12:22:56 PM PST by Stourme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stourme

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2644629/posts


2 posted on 12/21/2010 12:25:13 PM PST by ButThreeLeftsDo (Merry Christmas!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

Homosexual domestic partners already get fringe benefits in some states, even those without same-sex marriage. I think it’s the law in some states. Other employers just do it because they think it’s a good idea.

Check with labor lawyers in your state. Legally, you may be required to provide the same benefits to same-sex partners that you do to all of your employees.

I appreciate where you are coming from, but, this area of law is changing, and you could be hit with a major lawsuit, depending on the exact laws in your state.


3 posted on 12/21/2010 12:27:33 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

Your title is poorly worded - you could get the zot if no one reads your text.


4 posted on 12/21/2010 12:27:49 PM PST by libertarian27 (Ingsoc: Department of Life, Department of Liberty, Department of Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I would think, as an employer, you have the right to provide whatever benefits you choose.

Except in MA.

Here, because gay marriage is legal you have to provide equal coverage to that of traditional (real) married folks.

In addition, you may have to provide health benefits.

Take a look folks.....this is the crap thats coming to your neck of the woods.


5 posted on 12/21/2010 12:29:50 PM PST by Vermont Lt (Don't taze my junk bro.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

The legal right to not accept liberalism is not politically correct and thus you must be punished for not towing the Communist Party line.


6 posted on 12/21/2010 12:29:50 PM PST by Ouderkirk (Democrats...the party of Slavery, Segregation, Sodomy, and Sedition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

Bob Cratchett never had any perks working for Scrooge.
In the past one hundred years employers have given benefits to encourage a bribe to hire the best worker possible.
It’s amazing how these items such as health insurance, retirement, education and more seem to taken as law rather than gifts.
Here I am talking like this with Christmas not far away.

Merry Christmas everybody.


7 posted on 12/21/2010 12:37:34 PM PST by donhunt (I am sick and tired of those bastards insulting me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

What is the legal argument that supports my right to not accept homosexual marriage as legitimate?

____________________________________________

As far as I’m concerned, you have no legal obligation to explain why you did not hire a turd-burglering rump-ranger.

If at some point, you find you do have one in your employ, then use all the legal remedies at your disposal to resolve your problem.

Why are you asking this question??


8 posted on 12/21/2010 12:37:46 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (Yes, as a matter of fact, what you do in your bedroom IS my business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

That is correct. Perhaps a few years in a remote facility, with the proper instruction, will lead you to see the error of your faulty thinking and bring you in line with the correct/approved thinking. Correct thinking will be rewarded while incorrect thinking will be severely punished. Resistance is futile.


9 posted on 12/21/2010 12:40:59 PM PST by JPG (A new sheriff is on her way and she's ready to cleanup Dodge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

Varies by state. In right-to-work states, I think you can terminate employees without cause. A friend of mine who was a employer in a right-to-work state said it’s best to say “Your services are no longer required” when showing an employee the door. It he demands and explanation, refuse. However, it’s risky if your state protects homos from discrimination. If a disgruntled former employee sues and can demonstrate a pattern of discrimination, you’re screwed. You should consult a local attorney to be sure.


10 posted on 12/21/2010 12:41:32 PM PST by matt1234 (0bama's bunker phase: Nov. 2010 - Jan. 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

#3, “....Engaging in homosexual acts shows a decided weakness in someone’s character, morals, and judgment.”

Verbatim what I said in a courtroom during jury selection here in Riverside, California a few months ago, and was told to leave the court. sed OK...buh bye.

FWIW

IOW as I’ve posted before the Left is ensconsed in the Judicial, Journalism, Academia, virtually everything, and the rules are theirs it seems anymore.

I think that all we can do is keep voting them out until we get true Americans into our political scene so we can reduce the Leftist monstrosity of a government, and get the little Hitlers the “H” out of our lives. IOW get the Leftist’s noses out of our shorts.


11 posted on 12/21/2010 12:41:38 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

Don’t hire them.


12 posted on 12/21/2010 12:42:35 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
Thanks Dilbert. Honestly this stuff makes me want to puke. It creeps me out to no end. And I don't think I have the words to describe just how much.

There's got to be some kind of protection against being forced to do this.

I will sell my interest in the business. I will not give in. I won't do it.

I always knew the world would get bad. But I never thought it would get like this. It's in my face and there's no where to go.
13 posted on 12/21/2010 12:43:47 PM PST by Stourme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

I’d say don’t hire homosexuals if at all possible. Fire the ones you have. There is no (not yet, anyway) federal mandate to honor homosexuality above your beliefs.

States may take a different stance - I’d say leave any state that is Marxist enough to mandate obesience to sodomy and take your business to a sane state, and shake the dust from your feet as you leave. Refuse to do ANY business in such Marxist states and don’t buy any products or services from these states.

We must get as serious about this stiffling oppression as the homosexuals are about imposing the oppression.


14 posted on 12/21/2010 12:44:52 PM PST by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

If you live in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, it will depend on whether your insurance plan is governed by your state’s insurance regs, those of the federal government, or those of some other state. If you are a small employer, it is likely governed by your state’s insurance regulations.

If your state recognizes same-sex marriage, and your insurance plan is regulated by that state’s insurance regulations, then in all likelihood “a spouse is a spouse” as far as the law is concerned, and I’m not sure you’d have any non-Constitutional recourse. I know this is true in Massachusetts, not sure about other states.

There are Constitutional arguments based on freedom to contract, freedom to associate, etc... but I’d consider them long-shots.

Of course, you’re always free to not offer spousal benefits at all...


15 posted on 12/21/2010 12:46:26 PM PST by ivyleaguebrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ivyleaguebrat

Or not hire homosexuals at all, as someone else said. (In some states this may be illegal discrimination, but in most states it isn’t.)


16 posted on 12/21/2010 12:48:45 PM PST by ivyleaguebrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

The homosexual agenda in a nutshell:

(To the tune of the Dr. Pepper song)

I’m a homo
He’s a homo
Everyone should be a homo
Wouldn’t you like to be a homo too?

If the candidate is any good, and they happen to be gay, you’ll never know anyway.

If they make a point of mentioning their alternative lifestyle, they are looking to benefit from a lawsuit later.

It’s an employer’s market. There will always be someone else more qualified....


17 posted on 12/21/2010 12:50:09 PM PST by Califreak (November 2008 proved that Idiocracy isn't just a movie anymore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stourme
This link might help. Most states don't require employers to offer insurance at all. Near the bottom of this page you will see the list of states and what they require, or don't. If they don't have domestic partner laws you probably aren't require to insure the partners of homosexual employees.

As a private employer, morality isn't the only reason not to insure them. They are a very unhealthy group to insure.

Cohabitation Laws

18 posted on 12/21/2010 12:51:05 PM PST by Melinda in TN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

I think it depends very much on the state.

But clearly the best answer is not to hire them. Unfortunately, that’s not simple, since it would be a major mistake to inquire about it, or to let it even be suspected.

I would say that there are at least THREE degrees of homosexuality.

1. The inclination. This is a disorder, but if the person resists acting on it, then he avoids blame.

2. Homosexual acts. According to traditional belief and Christian moral teaching, this is wrong. But if practiced privately and quietly, it hurts mainly the perpetrators.

3. Homosexual activism. This is much worse in an employee. Someone who is vocal about homosexual rights, who pushes to change the law and is eager to sue anyone for hate crimes. This leads to unjust laws, teaching of homosexuality in the public schools, degradation of marriage, and all sorts of cultural evils.


19 posted on 12/21/2010 12:56:01 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Califreak

Yeah, anybody who forces their sexual preferences into an interview... either not all there or looking for a lawsuit.

HomoUsa is looking for any precedent they can get before they get cast into political Siberia, where they belong, in ‘12.


20 posted on 12/21/2010 1:07:13 PM PST by txhurl (This Is Not America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Why are you asking this question??

I thought I made that clear in the OP. I do not want to support homosexual behavior. Period. It's evil.

It's not that I want to be mean to people. But to me I see homosexual behavior as a cancer of this world.
21 posted on 12/21/2010 1:08:29 PM PST by Stourme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo

I’m missing your point.


22 posted on 12/21/2010 1:19:29 PM PST by Stourme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

You need to speak to a lawyer, and word the question carefully. Unless, of course, you are willing to go down in flames for your beliefs.

“Protected” groups have enlisted every possible level of government in their cause. They have what amounts to “secret shoppers” looking to out the various -phobes they oppose. It’s a minefield and you need a like-thinking pro to navigate the waters.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.


23 posted on 12/21/2010 1:33:53 PM PST by Felis_irritable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

I can assure you quite confidently it’s not a “choice” and I dislike being painted with the “turd-burglaring rump ranger” label. I didn’t just DECIDE one day “lol I wanna do this.” Hard to believe but yes there are conservative TBRRs out there who love God and guns as much as you guys do. Anyway, I have no answer to the question at hand but wanted to throw my 0,02 in because I’ve grown a little tired of the bashing that goes on around here.


24 posted on 12/21/2010 1:42:46 PM PST by musicbymuzak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

I think it depends very much on the state.

But clearly the best answer is not to hire them. Unfortunately, that’s not simple, since it would be a major mistake to inquire about it, or to let it even be suspected.

I would say that there are at least THREE degrees of homosexuality.

1. The inclination. This is a disorder, but if the person resists acting on it, then he avoids blame.

2. Homosexual acts. According to traditional belief and Christian moral teaching, this is wrong. But if practiced privately and quietly, it hurts mainly the perpetrators.

3. Homosexual activism. This is much worse in an employee. Someone who is vocal about homosexual rights, who pushes to change the law and is eager to sue anyone for hate crimes. This leads to unjust laws, teaching of homosexuality in the public schools, degradation of marriage, and all sorts of cultural evils.


I agree totally. If you say publicly that you won't hire a homosexual, you might find your words being printed and used as evidence in a congressional hearing.

 
I like your degrees. I couldn't have said it better.
 
My wife had a relative that was mixed up in this for a while. I laid down the law and stuck to it. The relative could visit. But the partner could not. I won't allow it in my house, ever.
 
I have kids and I want there to be no confusing this kind of behavior with a normal relationship. Thankfully this relative got out of that and is now legitimately married.

25 posted on 12/21/2010 1:45:14 PM PST by Stourme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Stourme; 185JHP; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; ..
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

26 posted on 12/21/2010 1:50:17 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: musicbymuzak
I can assure you quite confidently it’s not a “choice” and I dislike being painted with the “turd-burglaring rump ranger” label. I didn’t just DECIDE one day “lol I wanna do this.”

Yes, engaging in homosexual sex, just like engaging in heterosexual sex is a choice.

Being attracted to someone is not equal to committing sex acts.

I find women to be God's most beautiful creation. But I choose to have sex only with one.

What we are bashing is the sex act itself.

If you truly love God you will resist and I mean do whatever it takes to resist committing homosexual sex acts.

Every person that is born on this earth was born with trials and weaknesses that they must over come. That's why we are here. These trials are giving to you by God Himself. If you do what is required to over come them, you will be strong and a force for good. If you give in to them you will be weak and eventually cast off.

Again, it's your choice.
27 posted on 12/21/2010 2:00:16 PM PST by Stourme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

That is true. It depends on the number of employees.


28 posted on 12/21/2010 2:17:50 PM PST by SgtHooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

If I can figure your question correctly, The US has the right to determine who is recognized as legally married. We have said that Mormons can only have one wife at a time. We have made laws against marrying animals. We can and should state that it is illegal for a man to marry a man or woman marry a woman. The government has the right to determine who is able to marry. I isn’t necessarily a moral judgment for the government. For me, it is absolutely moral judgment, but the government is representative of who the people are,.......supposedly.


29 posted on 12/21/2010 2:18:48 PM PST by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: musicbymuzak

It is most definitely a choice. Same sex Attraction Disorder (SAD) is a mental disease. It is your choice whether you want to remain sick or not. Both secular and religious organizations have had success with curing homosexuality for the motivated patient.

Additionally, if you really loved God you would not commit abomination nor identify yourself as your sin. (Once you state “I am gay” you are stating that you are allying yourself with the abomination instead of with God. Someone may have occasional or even recurrent homosexual desires but that does not make them a homosexual. A person is not a theif until they steal. A person is not a murderer until they murder. A person is not a moslem until they profess to be a moslem.)


30 posted on 12/21/2010 2:20:59 PM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: John O

oops too late. he got zotted.


31 posted on 12/21/2010 2:22:15 PM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Stourme

Well put: the attraction to the opposite sex might be inherent in you, but the decision to act on that attraction is a choice that must be made. Homosexual activity is a choice.

Just like I might be attracted to any number of women but choose not to act on that attraction in order to remain faithful to my wife.


32 posted on 12/21/2010 2:23:28 PM PST by Fishface (teach a man to fish...he eats for a lifetime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: musicbymuzak

An Admin Mod solved your problem with FR. Bye.


33 posted on 12/21/2010 2:26:51 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Nuke the corrupt commie bastards to HELL!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: musicbymuzak; metmom

Musicbymuzak has been escorted from the premises.


34 posted on 12/21/2010 2:36:01 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: musicbymuzak
I can assure you quite confidently it’s not a “choice” and I dislike being painted with the “turd-burglaring rump ranger” label. I didn’t just DECIDE one day “lol I wanna do this.” Hard to believe but yes there are conservative TBRRs out there who love God and guns as much as you guys do. Anyway, I have no answer to the question at hand but wanted to throw my 0,02 in because I’ve grown a little tired of the bashing that goes on around here.

I tend to take the position of my Church(Catholic) and much of what you infer is true in some regards e.g. some may be predisposed cause unknown with an attraction to the same sex. I would suggest that some may love deeply another as well without having to engage in sex with them e.g. a family member...

Anyway, being predisposed to an activity may lessen or remove culpability (guilt); however, does not lessen the negative aspects of the act itself.

I would suggest that if one is predisposed to an activity and if they begin actually engaging in the activity that this reinforces its 'hold'. The longer it is practiced the more habitual and entrenched the attraction becomes. As well, the more one is told (conditioned) to believe that what they do is okay -the more it is as well entrenched and the more it takes 'hold'...

From my perspective, opposing the homosexual agenda entails primarily opposing those who use government --to promote state that homosexual sex is neutral, equivalent or good, opposing those who wish to use government to indoctrinate children into accepting the activity as good, opposing those who seek government mandated rights and privilege premised in the activity, and opposing those who promote suggest government funded and sponsored propaganda regarding homosexual sex e.g. it is "okay" or "it will get better" as was recently seen in a public campaign to fight bullying.

Opposing the homosexual agenda is not and should not be about judging whether or not one is legitimately predisposed and suffering a heavy burden -one can not judge anothers heart.

As well, opposing the homosexual agenda is about His love which is rightly displayed not only in loving the person but as well in rejecting the activity. Just as when one loves their children -this love not only encompasses acceptance it as well encompasses guidance -acceptance and guidance involve both encouragement and discipline...

35 posted on 12/21/2010 2:54:55 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Stourme
What is the legal argument that supports my right to not accept homosexual marriage as legitimate?

U.S. Legal Code

TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 7

§ 7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

36 posted on 12/21/2010 3:05:25 PM PST by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuckles; All
The US has the right to determine who is recognized as legally married.

Ahhh Ok.. very good point!!!

So under the precident of the Edmunds Act of 1882, we can, at the federal level mandate marriage law.

Ok then, what we need is a conservative Senate and President and a SCOTUS to pass it and make it stick.
It's not impossible. Then we can put this abomination to rest.

But could we do it?
37 posted on 12/21/2010 3:28:33 PM PST by Stourme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Stourme
What is the legal argument that supports my right to not accept homosexual marriage as legitimate? The First Amendment if one has religious objections to homosexuality. Forcing someone to accept homosexual marriage violates their freedom to practice their religion.
38 posted on 12/21/2010 3:35:22 PM PST by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo

Have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy?

If you’re paying a good lawyer to save your ass from being sued to perdition then it’s their job to answer these questions for you.

Under some legal systems (the British one for instance) there’s a pretty simple rule of thumb which I think applies just as well States-side: if you fire an employee for conduct/misconduct, then ask yourself if the specific grounds for the specific instance of dismissal, amount to any or all of the following:

1. unlawful activity (e.g. committing a criminal offense)
2. explicitly against company policy (e.g. tardiness)
3. directly bad for business (e.g. being rude to customers)
4. bringing you into disrepute (e.g. shoddy workmanship)
5. disrupting the work environment (e.g. drunk, abusive)

If you cannot satisfy a single one of those general ideas then you really do need to check with your legal advisers that the specific reasons for firing the employee, aren’t a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Where it gets difficult for me to give a confident answer, is if the only reason you even suspect that an employee who earns his keep and does his job well, is homosexual, is because of an accusation from a colleague. Absent any explicit evidence that it’s affected their ability to do the job you pay them to do, it wouldn’t do you any harm to consider the possibility that the motives of the “whistle blower” may not be entirely innocent and their “evidence” might be gilding the lily.


39 posted on 12/21/2010 3:36:59 PM PST by MalPearce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
Anyway, being predisposed to an activity may lessen or remove culpability (guilt); however, does not lessen the negative aspects of the act itself.

Such a very good statement and profound. Thank you for posting it. :-)


40 posted on 12/21/2010 3:46:33 PM PST by Stourme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Stourme
Yes we can do it. You just have to evangelize all the people you know. It is because we all get wrapped up in our private lives that the country goes to hell. Join your nearest TEA Party if you haven't already. There are local groups that support your goals, join them and PARTICIPATE! Make sure your church supports the Bible position on homosexuality. If you have a lukewarm church, GET OUT!!!!!! Make it known why you are leaving. It helps to know your Bible verses to back God's position on the subject. I remember Obama saying he believes Jesus is for homosexual Marriage because of what he read in the "Sermon on the Mount". Huh? Which mount? What Sermon? The supporters don't know their scripture if they use Jesus as a source.

As far as putting it to rest, "no", I don't think it will be put to rest. They will go to the courts to get what they can't do at the ballot box. What we need is a way to impeach judges that legislate from the bench. When you allow a congress critter to take office that doesn't believe as you do, you will get MORE than what you voted for. Maybe someone says they will cut your taxes. But if they are a LIBERAL, you get all that comes with that along with the tax treatment you wanted. A one issue voter is dangerous. As a second amendment supporter, I have seen this over my lifetime. A person may be top notch on guns but I get abortion, homosexual marriage and anti God, anti America legislation with that. We must study our candidates completely to make a choice. It takes more than a speech at the school gym to figure it out.

41 posted on 12/21/2010 4:09:19 PM PST by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: musicbymuzak; 50mm

Zot ping ;)

Bikk


42 posted on 12/21/2010 8:00:14 PM PST by Bikkuri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: musicbymuzak
IATZ


43 posted on 12/21/2010 8:07:45 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: musicbymuzak; 50mm; Old Sarge; darkwing104

ZOTTED ping


44 posted on 12/22/2010 3:43:59 PM PST by Arrowhead1952 (Whether corruption is in politics, science, education, research, etc., always follow the money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: musicbymuzak; 230FMJ; 50mm; A.Hun; abigailsmybaby; AFPhys; Aircop_2006; AliVeritas; Allegra; ...
I’ve grown a little tired of the bashing that goes on around here.

And we have grown tired of Trolls.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.

45 posted on 12/22/2010 4:25:25 PM PST by darkwing104 (Lets get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: musicbymuzak
IATZ


46 posted on 12/22/2010 4:31:13 PM PST by RedMDer (Forward with Confidence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: musicbymuzak; darkwing104
A mental and genetic abberation is not normal, nor should it be celebrated. Pitied maybe. Getting rid of DADT will harm the military. Is that what you wanted? Ah, well, zotted you are.

Photobucket

47 posted on 12/22/2010 4:31:32 PM PST by dynachrome ("Our forefathers didn't bury their guns. They buried those that tried to take them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

Good one! “Dude looks guilty to me” also works.


48 posted on 12/22/2010 4:31:35 PM PST by JPG (There is hope for America and her name is Sarah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: musicbymuzak

Here are a few things that occur because of your “Choice”

Here is a list of what many doctors refer to as “Lavender” diseases. They occur with extraordinary frequency among male homosexuals.

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis

Did you also know that while faggots are only 1% to 2% of the population they account for over 50% of all AIDS cases?


49 posted on 12/22/2010 4:34:40 PM PST by skimask
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104
This account has been banned or suspended.

Now that's music to my "ears"!

50 posted on 12/22/2010 4:39:00 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson