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

Skip to comments.

Fox’s Shep Smith on Gay Marriage: Republicans On ‘Wrong Side Of History’(video)
Breitbart TV ^ | May 9, 2012

Posted on 05/09/2012 4:36:24 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY

“What I’m most curious about is whether it’s your belief that in this time of rising debts and medical issues and all the rest if Republicans would go out on the limb and try to make this a campaign issue while sitting very firmly, without much question, on the wrong side of history on it.”

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; shepsmith
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-75 last
To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

YES. YES.


51 posted on 05/09/2012 5:37:05 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Wrong side of history? History tells me that all cultures recognized marriage as being between a man and a woman.


52 posted on 05/09/2012 5:42:50 PM PDT by popdonnelly (Socialism isn't going to work this time, either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
I remember the morning Katrina hit Mississippi, it was about 6:30 in the morning and I turned on the news (well, I thought it was news at the time) on my way out for work. There was Sheepherder Smith on the balcony of some hotel ready to report on the hurricane in his beloved New Orleans. It was just barely light and only the slightest of breezes was blowing. You could already hear multiple burglar alarms going off both close and in the distance, but the Intrepid Newsman Smith was already pushing the story that storm damage had set off all the alarms. >>> PUTZ!

A dubious fax from some Kinko's in Texas is in his future.

53 posted on 05/09/2012 5:53:57 PM PDT by Blogatron (Brought to you by The American Frog Council; 'Frog - The other green meat')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heart of Georgia

The Soviet Union was once considered the wave of the future, too.


54 posted on 05/09/2012 5:54:23 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Hey Shep. The vast majority of the people of planet Earth are innately repulsed by homosexuality. They don’t celebrate it, and never will, whether you like it or not.


55 posted on 05/09/2012 6:13:03 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

L.I.T.L. Shepard Smith supporting special rights for sodomites?

This is a surprise?


56 posted on 05/09/2012 6:23:28 PM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg (With (R)epublicans like these, who needs (D)emocrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

“From all appearances, if he does come out of the closet, it will be to stumble straight into a hospital bed in an HIV ward.”

“The BIG question nobody wants to answer is what’s so freaking “gay” about dying of HIV well before one’s time?”

............................................................

I get a survey every year from my health insurer, if I don’t fill it out they will raise my premiums.

They ask things like, what I eat and how much of it, how I exercise and how often, do I use tobacco products, alcohol?

I quit smoking about 4 years ago but prior to that, I simply lied on the form and said that I had never smoked and do not drink alcoholic beverages. The part about alcoholic beverages is true but it’s still none of their business.

They have already raised the rates of admitted tobacco users. Alcohol is next, no matter if you drink in moderation or not. Then will come raises for people who don’t exercise, then for people who don’t eat their correct amount of fruit and veggies.

The only question that is notably absent is whether I lead the queer life style, a known and very expensive, for insurers, killer.


57 posted on 05/09/2012 6:27:06 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Romney vs. Obama? One of them has to lose, I'll rejoice in that fact, whichever it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

What’s his husband’s name?


58 posted on 05/09/2012 6:42:20 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Ich habe keinen Konig aber Gott)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

I hope the Democrats DO make the election about gay marriage, I really do.

People are So sick and tired of perversion in their face day after day demanding that they not only accept it but reward it, honor it, celebrate it. Me Me Me Me...look at me..I’m so different and so special and I demand you treat me with respect just because I am different.

The average Joe gets NO RESPECT or HONOR or REWARD for keeping this country going, for obeying laws and being a good neighbor,for raising families and sending their kids to schools with bad teachers, for working meaningless low paying jobs just so they can have a paycheck so they can buy $4+ gas, maybe eat something besides their nightly hot dogs and mac and cheese only to be told by Meshell they need to eat better food and they’re too fat and lazy. and make bad choices and “need education”...
all the while standing on their feet in a factory for
12 hrs a day , making $10-11 an hour so they can pay their taxes and Meshell’s vacation bills and teacher’s ridiculous salaries and health care.

People are TIRED of getting insulted, being called racist or homophobe just because they are white, married Christians and want to lead THAT kind of lifestyle.

WE ARE the MAJORITY. The Christians, the people who believe in families with 2 parents male and female, and who celebrate MARRIAGE between a man and a woman according to THEIR RELIGION.

WE are the NORM, not gay-sexuals... And we have had it.

Rant over.


59 posted on 05/09/2012 6:55:00 PM PDT by homegroan (Veni, Vedi, Velcro....since 1998)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

God what a freaking moron. I knew there was a good reason I generally skip FNC in the 7 o’clock hour.


60 posted on 05/09/2012 7:21:01 PM PDT by fkabuckeyesrule (Lets institute SARAH-ia law in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Didn’t Shep have AIDS related health problems recently?
I thought I read that somewhere a couple of months ago..


61 posted on 05/09/2012 7:24:27 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Yeah, I’m really surprised that he and his boyfriend haven’t hop-scotched down to the courthouse and tied the knot. Or maybe he’s in a snit because Sam Champion is spoken for, and he had to settle for someone else.


62 posted on 05/09/2012 7:25:14 PM PDT by ExNewsExSpook (uoted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
I wonder what nice honeymoon spot this happy couple chose?
Will they consummate their marriage on a bed or in a hot tub?


63 posted on 05/09/2012 7:27:45 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I am sure that Lot’s wife, looking back with longing to Sodom, proudly and confidently proclaimed that Abraham and those old fashioned followers of the Lord were also “on the wrong side of history” with their narrow minded, judgemental views about homosexual acts. And we know how well that line worked out for her, don’t we.


64 posted on 05/09/2012 7:34:23 PM PDT by JustTheTruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Seems like shephard is getting a little testy about the subject.

wonder why?


65 posted on 05/09/2012 7:42:03 PM PDT by Texas resident (Hunkered Down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

The odd time this subject comes up with friends, the only things I say are:

1) think of what these people do and don’t try and tell me that this is normal.

2) it’s an exit, not an entrance.

3) I’m with God - it’s an abomination. Your argument is with Him, not me.


66 posted on 05/09/2012 7:47:03 PM PDT by JudyinCanada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I’m accustomed to being “on the wrong side of history”.It certainly hasn’t caused me any sleepless nights.


67 posted on 05/09/2012 7:54:50 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Julia: another casualty of the "War on Poverty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Several cultures adopted very permissive attitudes towards open homosexuality. They did not last very long. I think this embrace of homosexuality was more symptomatic than a cause of instability, but no culture took that path and prospered for very long.


68 posted on 05/09/2012 8:32:48 PM PDT by Psalm 144 (Obama's record is an open charnel pit. Romney's too, but under a whitened sepulchre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly
Wrong side of history? History tells me that all cultures recognized marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Well...those cultures that survived, anyway.

Milton Miteybad to Sheep Smith: "Sheep...I might be able to give your "gay marriage' proposal some kind of serious consideration if you were able to enuniciate a compelling, irrefutable anthropological basis for it. Heterosexual marriage, as an anthropological institution for the propagation and rearing of succeeding generations, existed long before these United States ever came to be. It will continue to exist, in one form or another, long after these United States cease to exist. The reason for that is heterosexual marriage serves an anthropological purpose that transcends ephemeral governments, namely, the continuation of the very society itself. As I know you'll agree, that function is something these 'gay marriages' simply cannot achieve. Now, Sheep...what was that anthropological purpose you said these 'gay marriages' had, again?

"You can't think of one? Can't say I'm too surprised. I can't either. And that's why I'm having trouble with your silly little proposal."
69 posted on 05/09/2012 8:46:01 PM PDT by Milton Miteybad (I am Jim Thompson. {Really.})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

They need to dump that faggot.


70 posted on 05/09/2012 8:56:20 PM PDT by matthew fuller (Mitt Romney is the supreme exemplification of the word SMARMY.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Nero thought he was on the right side of history, too, Shep.


71 posted on 05/09/2012 8:58:28 PM PDT by Antoninus (Sorry, gone rogue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: homegroan
I agree, the same-sex marriage fight is indeed a serious issue. The Obama Regime is poised to eliminate the Defense of Marriage Act if it can de-normalize heterosexual monogamy. Whether to bring the fight into the presidential campaign is a tactic, I am afraid, could distract from the issue of Obama's economic incompetence. It is the economic issue that you passionately describe in your post that is the silver stake into the heart of the Obama Regime. It is the failure of Keynesian economics, which was proved a failure during the FDR Regime, that Obama revived for its same failed effect. We need to get to the bottom of why he revived this failed economic plan. That answer should kill his chances of reelection.

On the perversion of the family issue, how to formulate a clear message that defends monogamous heterosexual marriage will be a challenge. We have a huge electorate who does not know the implications of normalizing homosexual relationships. You see them clapping on shows that promote homosexuality and same sex marriage. Most American have no clue what the battle is about. The media indoctrination for same sex marriage has been irresponsible and non-stop. How we stop the propaganda campaign will be a challenge.

Basically, same-sex marriage violates the natural parent-child bond in every family, and the right of the family to protection by society and the state. It will discard the fundamental understanding that the family based upon the heterosexual marriage is very foundation of society. Same sex-marriage will de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, as expressions of law. That understanding that the family is a small society (a sovereign state) with unique rights and responsibilities independent of the state will become mere policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state. The family, this society, founded more immediately in nature (the proles--procreation or fruitfulness), will no longer have the distinction of sexual difference, with its generative power. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society. With a change in the definition of marriage the family will have no direct connection to nature. This leaves the parent-child relation open to increasing intervention by the state. And with the possibility of the state being influenced by foreign forces, the definition of the family could be expanded to include such barbarous practices as sex with children and polygamy.

With the definition of marriage redefined, the state with its newfound power, will undermine further the sovereign nature of the family, and the sphere of the church or religious community as well—the two spheres where divine and human rights independent of the state are located. This will come as an all out assault on heterosexism, or anything that seems to privilege the male-female binary or the nuclear family. It will enable the state to indoctrinate our children and deprive us of the power to intervene. We must understand the serious nature of this fight. There will be no peace is to be had by capitulation.

The big question is can the fight be fought in the midst of a presidential campaign? Could it backfire and be used against our candidate? Remember, we are dealing with an indoctrinated public who is ignorant of the real issue and its consequences. Can smart minds formulate the argument that will not be given the homophobia label? This fight must be be vigorously taken up by Christians who can boldly declare that marriage is a gift—something we receive with creation, not something we invent—and that only what is capable of being a marriage act is natural sex. I believe that this issue can be fought on the moral level as it presents itself to the sovereignty of the family. Then, it ceases to be a Republican or a Democratic cause, and not be spun as a stigma against our presidential candidate. It should be made a human rights issue

72 posted on 05/10/2012 6:37:45 AM PDT by jonrick46 (Countdown to 11-06-2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I would rather be on the wrong side of history than on the wrong side of God.


73 posted on 05/10/2012 8:07:33 AM PDT by Only1choice____Freedom (FDR had the New Deal. President 0bama has the Raw Deal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExNewsExSpook
Maybe.....he hasn't built up the courage yet to tell MooShell.
74 posted on 05/10/2012 9:45:21 AM PDT by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: massmike
Yes! The imagined dichotomy between social & economic or fiscal Conservatism is just that, imagined. (For how "social reform," spills over to negatively impact all aspects of a society's institutions, see Social Reform: Confusion or "Unintended Consequences.".)

The idea that same sex marriage will be accepted in an historic perspective is as silly as one of the experiments that Dean Swift described in Gulliver's voyage to Laputa & trip to the Academy there. Marriage, in the historic sense, no less than in the philosophic, has always been the way Mankind, or any of its subsets, seeks to sanctify its procreational procedures. It reflects the reality (Shep Smith, notwithstanding), that all civilization--and every community, tribe, nation & race--is a multi-generational ongoing work in progress. Marriage has never been considered valid, if it could not be consummated by a procreational act--in most societies subject to annulment.

The burlesque of the concept of marriage, of course, goes 'hand-in-glove' with all the other ways that multi-generational purpose is being lost in America & Europe. There is a considerable parallel between the attack on marriage--and the family as a coninuing enterprise--and the willingness of politicians to spend the wealth--often not yet even earned--of future generations, to buy the support of the totally self-centered, who want to live for the moment.

Unfortunately, Shep Smith will not be around to see what realistic historians actually have to say about the farce that he seems to applaud.

William Flax

75 posted on 05/10/2012 10:18:35 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


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