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

Skip to comments.

PRUDEN: Navigating past the same-sex marriage ‘ick factor’
washington times ^ | 5/15/2012 | By Wesley Pruden

Posted on 05/15/2012 3:39:14 AM PDT by tobyhill

This is not what Barack Obama expected for a coming-out party. The “historic” revelation that he is now fully evolved, as from tadpole to frog, and now grooves on same-sex marriage, was meant to be marked with quiet ceremony. No music, no flowers, no kiss, no dancing, not even a cupcake.

Rage and outrage over same-sex marriage would take everybody’s mind off the dreary economy, which whimpers on. Everybody was then supposed to shut up and get back to work (for those with work).

Instead, the president gets his photograph (with a rainbow halo) on the cover of Newsweek magazine as “the first gay president,” all the Sunday-morning political talk shows were devoted to endless gasbaggery about gays and marriage, and even Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the heartthrob of the Upper East Side, complained that the president’s coming-out might have set back the campaign for “full equality” for gay caballeros.

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


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bhogayvote; homosexualagenda; ick; pruden; samesexmarriage

1 posted on 05/15/2012 3:39:21 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Even family members of homosexuals never get past the “ick” factor. Anyone who considers what they do to each other has to be nauseous from it; there is nothing remotely “normal” about it. Law enforcement in particular can tell you stories to turn your stomach (and convince you how sick these people really are).


2 posted on 05/15/2012 3:41:57 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

When one encourages or sanctions less than the best behavior you get more of the the less than best behavior. It is called enabling and Obama is the Enabler In Chief.


3 posted on 05/15/2012 3:43:55 AM PDT by vicar7 ("Polls are for strippers and cross-country skiers" Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

This is such an obvious political loser for Obama that I have to wonder why he did it. There must be some ace-in-the-hole the rest of us aren’t seeing... something beyond the money-bomb from Hollywood.

The media is already 95% in his corner so he didn’t need to do this to get them... but maybe this was aimed directly at them anyway, just to be sure.

And there’s always the possibility it was a just plain stupid move. When you’re trapped in a leftist echo-chamber it’s always tempting to believe the leftist cheers and think they represent the people.


4 posted on 05/15/2012 3:46:05 AM PDT by samtheman ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Why would you want to “get past” the ick factor?

Its sick and broken behavior. It certainly does not merit being accepted or normal.


5 posted on 05/15/2012 3:54:08 AM PDT by Adder (Da bro has GOT to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
I have no problem with equal rights. It is no longer about equal rights but legislating in the name of the law to grant a false sense of elevated social status.
Gays want to “take” the word marriage only because they can.
There is a lot of things they can never have even though they have the word marriage. As a couple they can never have a child with equal DNA. therefore when they “have” a child together there will always be one without a physical connection to the child. You need either an egg or sperm.
There are also many emotions and feelings they will never have due to the “toys” needed to perform the acts. Hugging and kissing are fine but the true joining, and love that comes from it, they will never know.
6 posted on 05/15/2012 4:10:28 AM PDT by lucky american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

so now Demoncrats can ‘evolve’
but Republicans can only ‘flip flop’

got it.


7 posted on 05/15/2012 4:22:09 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

It seems to me that a lot of Romney’s campaign cash has likely come from homosexuals, so-called Log Cabin Republicans, and Obama had to move further into their camp to try to win back both their dollars and their votes. Yes, it is very icky when the two contenders for POTUS are vying for the favor of Sodomites, and both claiming to serve Jesus Christ.


8 posted on 05/15/2012 4:23:55 AM PDT by .30Carbine (God bless you with the spirit of wisdom and understanding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I'm just pandering to my base ... something I do constantly

9 posted on 05/15/2012 4:24:21 AM PDT by Zakeet (Obama loves to wok dogs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Rage and outrage over same-sex marriage would take everybody’s mind off the dreary economy, which whimpers on.

I think what makes the homosexual lobby most interested in this is the word "marriage". The homosexual lobby has been systematically taking innocent words and giving them a homosexual connotation. If they can corrupt one more word, they are winning.

Nothing in current law would prevent two adults from entering into a contract that includes a means to dissolve the contract if desired by one or both parties. The contract could provide for mingling of their assets and for splitting assets if the contract was dissolved. It could contain provisions for proper conduct of the parties during the contract and specify that improper conduct was grounds for dissolving the contract. Any disagreement occurring when dissolving a contract would be handled in civil court.

This contract sounds a lot like marriage, or at least a pre-nup, but has a major flaw for the homosexual lobby. The word "marriage" remains uncontaminated by a homosexual double meaning. The list of words that have acquired a homosexual double meaning is long and growing. "Gay" was one of the earliest. Partner, buddy, friend, rainbow is a short list of words that now draw a snicker.

It boils down to this: I WANT MY LANGUAGE BACK!!

We are a free country (though less so now), so homosexuals should be able to live their lives. I only ask that they invent new words for their homosexual activities instead of stealing and redefining existing words.

10 posted on 05/15/2012 4:25:04 AM PDT by Cracker Jack (If it weren't for the democrats, republicans would be the worst thing in Washington.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cracker Jack

Yeah......what you said.


11 posted on 05/15/2012 4:38:31 AM PDT by RightOnline (I am Andrew Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The first thing to do is to knock down the “homophobic” label.

Disgust at the behavior is NOT a “phobia” or “fear”.
Neither is refusal to endorse the lifestyle or behavior a “phobia”.
Neither is it “hate”.

Start referring to liberals as TRUTHophobics!
...as they FEAR the TRUTH.


12 posted on 05/15/2012 4:42:31 AM PDT by G Larry (Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
I'm glad someone is talking about the "ick" factor. It's like Marcel Duchamp's "Nude Descending a Staircase No. 2," (1912), which the painted deliberately created and named to "dirty" the viewing public. Gallery-goers are compelled to view the modern art "depiction" and, in the mind's eye, search (I think in vain) for something resembling a "nude" and a staircase.

It was a subversive joke on "bourgeois" middle-class values designed to deliberately "dirty" their minds.

I should say it reminds me of this because, though it is certainly the evil intent of many subversive elements it may not be the case among others caught up in the "hip" element of "coming out."

Defining ourselves to one another based on sexuality subverts the innocent.

13 posted on 05/15/2012 4:44:08 AM PDT by Prospero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cracker Jack

It truly is a corruption of the word “marriage.”


14 posted on 05/15/2012 4:56:23 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

“This is such an obvious political loser for Obama that I have to wonder why he did it”

He did it because he is incapable of any other. When Jimmy Carter’s world was crumbling all around him (and us)I wondered why he didn’t dig in and fix things. I was only 22 so I didn’t know that Jimmah literally wasn’t ‘reasonable’. He WAS trying but only in a narrow leftist sense. He is a prisoner of his own stupidity.


15 posted on 05/15/2012 4:59:29 AM PDT by TalBlack ( Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Smoking will take 7 years off your life expectancy, having a “gay” lifestyle will take 20 or more years off. Why won’t the media and libs talk about that? They want to control all other behavior and lifestyles. No wonder they want to be in charge of healthcare, what better way to decide what illness gets the most funding!


16 posted on 05/15/2012 5:05:07 AM PDT by ABN 505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The elephant in the room is that virtually all heterosexuals, liberals as well as conservatives, do not view homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality. No nice words from libs claiming they think it’s the same will alter the truth. How many heterosexual parents, if given the choice between hetero or homo, would press a button that would make their newborns homosexuals? I would suspect next to none. The truth is: no heterosexual wants their children to be homosexual. They may love them however they turn out, but that is not the same as not caring about their childs sexual identification.


17 posted on 05/15/2012 5:12:46 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill; AngelesCrestHighway; JesseWatters; Orlando; Kaslin; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; ...
RE :”Instead, the president gets his photograph (with a rainbow halo) on the cover of Newsweek magazine as “the first gay president,” all the Sunday-morning political talk shows were devoted to endless gasbaggery about gays and marriage, and even Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the heartthrob of the Upper East Side, complained that the president’s coming-out might have set back the campaign for “full equality” for gay caballeros.

It's all about LOVE!

Gay Obama and Barney Frank, True love

18 posted on 05/15/2012 5:14:51 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

baraq probably did this because:

He needed the holly weird money.
His media probably has a large gay population so this insures that they will campaign for him
Lastly it is another finger in the eye for traditional Americans. He can’t help insulting us. It’s in his nature.


19 posted on 05/15/2012 5:15:52 AM PDT by Texas resident (November 6 - Vote Against obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The elephant in the room is that virtually all heterosexuals, liberals as well as conservatives, do not view homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality. No nice words from libs claiming they think it’s the same will alter the truth. How many heterosexual parents, if given the choice between hetero or homo, would press a button that would make their newborns homosexuals? I would suspect next to none. The truth is: no heterosexual wants their children to be homosexual. They may love them however they turn out, but that is not the same as not caring about their childs sexual identification.


20 posted on 05/15/2012 5:16:03 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Campaign funds !
The gays were not donating and voter fraud operations are pricey to set up


21 posted on 05/15/2012 5:31:42 AM PDT by ncalburt (NO MORE WIMPS need to apply to fight the Soros Funded Puppet !H)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

It’s true
The lefties treat guys like a cute fashion accessory or designer dog but not as equals .
They mock them behind their back .


22 posted on 05/15/2012 5:34:25 AM PDT by ncalburt (NO MORE WIMPS need to apply to fight the Soros Funded Puppet !H)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
This is a really good point.

Personally, I don't give a crap if you're gay or straight or whatever, and I have acquaintances who are gay and married, as I live, after all, in the Gay State. And I'll tell you this, as "evolved" as I am on this issue, I still cannot help but find it really "not normal."

Honestly, it's a little like a tranny trying to pretend he's a chick. No matter how hard they try to pass it off as normal and just another day-to-day thing, it really isn't. And it's not like I have anything against these people, or that their being married affects my life in any measurable way. It's just odd. And trying to normalize it only makes it feel more odd.

Frankly, I think we spend FAR TOO MUCH TIME on the gays and it distracts us from the real problems that affect this nation.

23 posted on 05/15/2012 5:36:57 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Homosexuals in the Military should have produced an avalanche of outrage from the public but didn't

This will blow over
24 posted on 05/15/2012 5:38:30 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
"Navigating past the same-sex marriage ‘ick factor’ "

Fellow, we all have to be aware of something, that should concern us. We are losing this battle because the media and the liberal culture are the vanguard of the army of the other side.

Less than 10 years ago, nationwide, gay marriage was opposed by 65% of people. Now it's down to the low 50% range. Why? Because of countless movies, books, TV shows, and college professors who routinely and casually mainstream the notion of homosexual parents and homosexual relationships.

Another example: when we check in for the first time at a new doctor's office, we routinely fill out a form with personal information, one of which is Gender/Sex: M[ ] or F[ ]. In contrast, my alma mater sent me an alumni form recently, and for Gender/Sex there were six listed: M[ ] F[ ] Transexual [ ] Transgendered [ ] and two more I can't remember but were no doubt equally perverse and disgusting.

If we are to defend our values, we need to look beyond the 2012 election and BHO's bumbling declaration that he has "evolved" to finally support gay marriage. The tide continues to rise and we are retreating, step by step.

25 posted on 05/15/2012 5:42:49 AM PDT by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cracker Jack
I also don't think government should be involved in marriage at all. Once an adult, everyone should be seen as an individual.

Let people have any ceremony they want, but none should be recognized by the state. Finances, hospital visits, power of attorney, custody, etc should be handled by legal paperwork.

Government being involved in marriage is a holdover from the days when women had far less rights. The same thing for financial settlements in divorce - it was intended for a time when women had no earning power and it protected them from being thrown penny-less into the street. Today, they shouldn't get a dime except for 50% of the child support. They could go into any career and easily earn more than men. Why do courts continue to subsidize the ones that aren't ambitious enough to do so?

26 posted on 05/15/2012 5:43:05 AM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Bill Clinton appointed several high-profile pastors to rehabilitate his inner man in the wake of “that woman, Monica Lewinsky,” though it was Bubba’s outer man who caused all the trouble. Bubba promised a public accounting of the reclamation project, but the job has apparently taken longer than anticipated and he has not yet delivered the results.

Bubba didn't need those ministers the MSM and his spin doctors covered for him with the "It's all About Sex" manta--witness how Bubba is now a respected speaker and wealthy for his efforts
27 posted on 05/15/2012 5:49:08 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cracker Jack

Defining marriage to be sodomy is nonsensical. But this nonsense will have disastrous consequences.

We’ve seen it in MA. Full normalization of homosexuality in government school curricula.”Dick and Jane said ‘Hi’ to Mr. & Mr. Jones.”

Adoption of children by sodomites.

And the coup de grace: absolute equality of men and women. Unisex bathrooms (already proposed here in MA), changing rooms, and God knows what else.


28 posted on 05/15/2012 5:54:01 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: uncbob

The Supreme Court legalized sodomy, and now the Democrat Party wants to institutionalize it.


29 posted on 05/15/2012 6:00:10 AM PDT by csmusaret (Obama's new slogan: "Fo Mo Mo Fo.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

BO is a Muslim at heart who hates Christianity....the muscular kind, not the sell-out kind that stands for nothing. Anything he can do to cause pain and suffering to true Christians is his contribution to the ascendancy of Islam. Just look at the results of his “Arab Spring” as Exhibit A.


30 posted on 05/15/2012 6:09:26 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReepers
If you've been putting off your donation, don't delay any longer.
Dig out that change jar.
Every little bit helps.



Free Republic survives with loyal support from friends
Click the Pic
Donate today


31 posted on 05/15/2012 6:10:10 AM PDT by deoetdoctrinae (Gun free zones are playgrounds for felons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Liberals, in general, do everything they can to avoid what it really means to be a homosexual, especially a male homosexual.

If you say, “do you REALLY want to say that a marriage between a man and a woman is equivalent to the desire of one man to put his * in another man’s *?”, they’ll recoil in horror and say that YOU’RE the bad person for bringing that up.


32 posted on 05/15/2012 6:12:10 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Many people are wondering why the Obama is doing this and I have my own theory as to why. First off it is not Obama who is orchestrating this but it is the democrat party doing so. For the first time in history the demcorats have given America a black President. Lest we forget that the demcorats are the party of the KKK. My theory is that the democrats are seeking to regain control of the civil rights issue and to control it. What is not pointed out ever (by anyone) but is amazing when looked at within a historic perspective is that we are about to have the party of the KKK, who fought against civil rights, now redefine the meaning of civil rights in America.

They want to do it now while America has a black President for two reasons; a.) it gives them cover against their past history by letting them claim they are not racist because they elected a black man President, and b.) being that they lost the civil rights issue in relation to the rights of black Americans it is a symbolic victory for them to redefine ‘civil rights’ and regain control over the issue with a black man leading their party.

Why is it never discussed as to how this issue will redefine ‘civil rights’? Is precedent being set for a person’s sexual behavior to possibly be as important (or more important?) as their race or gender? If more forms of sexual behavior or sexual identification become recoginized as protected classes then how do all these different protected classes weigh against eachother? Is being homosexual more important then being black?

It amazes me that the party of the KKK is possibly near accomplishing the complete reconfiguration of the meaning of civil rights and no one even points out that fact.


33 posted on 05/15/2012 6:12:14 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
Yes, it is very icky when the two contenders for POTUS are vying for the favor of Sodomites...

The wealthiest and most catered-to "oppressed minority" group ever!

34 posted on 05/15/2012 6:40:46 AM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: varyouga
Government being involved in marriage is a holdover from the days when women had far less rights.

That's not entirely true. In colonial Massachusetts, for example, Puritans were married by civil magistrates because they had rejected the notion (Anglican) that marriages had to be solemnized by a priest. Puritans also believed that when the terms of the covenant of marriage were broken, the marriage could be dissolved in divorce. The government also played a large role in "policing" marriage; "deadbeat dads" and such were routinely hauled into court and made to pay up, and of course, if the government weren't so involved in the marital affairs of its citizens, Hawthorne wouldn't have had the source material for Hester Prynne and her form of public punishment.

35 posted on 05/15/2012 6:45:15 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

I had Phagophobia once. It’s a real disease. Look it up in Wikipedia. (Fear of swallowing).


36 posted on 05/15/2012 9:26:30 AM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Threatened with being “outed”?


37 posted on 05/15/2012 9:30:32 AM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack

“He is a prisoner of his own stupidity.”

Bingo!


38 posted on 05/15/2012 10:09:39 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
The elephant in the room is that virtually all heterosexuals, liberals as well as conservatives, do not view homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality.

By their fruits you will know them. Heterosexuality produces children, and the perpetuation of the species. Homosexuality produces aids and hemorrhoids. One of them produces life, and other produces disease and death.

People may all be equal in the eyes of the law, but that does not mean that all relationships are equal. There are defined, privileged relationships in our society: attorney-client, doctor-patient, priest-pennitant, and husband-wife. It is in the legitimate interest of society to help a man and a woman produce and raise a functioning member of society. There is simply no such impetus for awarding this privileged status to a same sex couple. And while the homo-lobby likes to say "what about a marriage that produces no children", I reply that I don't have to show that heterosexual unions always produce children, I just have to show that homosexual unions never produce children. A same sex relationship is simply not the equal of an opposite sex relationship, and we as a society are under no obligation to treat them as such.

39 posted on 05/15/2012 12:33:11 PM PDT by NurdlyPeon (I just don't know what to put here right now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NurdlyPeon

I think of homosexuality as a disorder. It does not mean the people afflicted with it are criminals or insane. It just means I believe it to be a psychological disorder. Like all disorders, if I could cure it somehow, I would. But simply because I don’t believe homosexuals are criminals, I also don’t believe they’re entitled to the rights of marriage as people who don’t have the disorder.


40 posted on 05/15/2012 1:37:47 PM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Here J we no longer have any misconceptions about what male homosexuals are, and how crazy they are: our former governor came out of the closet, and wouldn’t outright deny liaisons while he was in office. Because he took down a phony wife and a child with him, normal people were repulsed; because he opposed “gay marriage” while in office, homos were as well...


41 posted on 05/15/2012 1:55:30 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ABN 505

I believe a lot of elected officials view it as a perk of the job to have these deviants available as toys, and as such want them readily available.

As far as “marriage”, most homosexuals have no interest in the commitment; it is about the money (social security, health benefits, etc.) that will come with the legal recognition.


42 posted on 05/15/2012 2:00:10 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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