Posted on 06/02/2014 9:28:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I;m not yelling, I’m embellishing ;)
So does it depend on the feces covered crack whore or the feces covered homosexual?
I suggest we spend time going onto the Huffy Puffy Post, CNN.com, MSNBC, Yahoo, and all the Leftist rag comment boards (American and foreign) and waging verbal war there. They troll us, so let's troll 'em back
Then, we need to ask our financial planners if there are any hedge funds out there that invest in American mass media and entertainment. Let's start pouring millions of dollars into the media, get our own representatives elected to the boards of directors, and start making some decisions about what kind of programming, music and movies should be made available to young skulls full of mush. Let's gain control over NBA and NFL teams, and start demanding the players act like (dress like, talk like, etc) responsible adults on and off the field/court.
There's a lot we can do, if we'd just quit planning our next retreat and get busy.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Depends on the overall situation.
It’s important to note that, although the fact that a person is a homosexual is a HUGE negative, and a homosexual COUPLE trying to adopt is in most ways a very bad thing for the child being adopted, there really are worse things that could happen to the child. Seriously. Just not many.
Freeping Since 2001
Since May 3 2014.
Retread much?
I see what uoi are getting at but look at this as a reductionist.
Regardless of any possible situation, Gays have a mental dysfunction. It was universally recognized as exactly that for thousands of years until gays took over the American Psychiatric Association.
There are two points:
1: Because gays say they are normal and no danger to others does not usurp the facts of science, medicine and history.
2; Placing children with mentally dysfunctional people is not only a crime against the children, but it perpetuates the acceptance of their mental dysfunction.
If any part of the above is provably incorrect, I welcome seeing the evidence.
I agree with your post except for one thing: There is nothing “gay” about them. It’s actually a very sad life when behind the walls of their own domiciles.
What they are is “homosexuals”. It’s what I always call them, unless I’m not feeling nice.
And I agree with the Gay/Homosexual thing. But we lost that word. It is forever tainted. So there is little point in fighting for it.
I get it that it’s a matter of principle and don’t disagree. But it is indeed forever lost to the English language.
I use the word “gay” all the time. I’m just always using it the old way. It’s actually a great conversation starter.
The last time I jokingly said “I’m feeling rather gay today” I got legitimately propositioned.... So I avoid doing that ;)
Since procreation is not one of their strong suits then how else are they to keep their ranks up??
Well.. he seemed to like pushing "toys" up his butt and thinks "loving gay couples" should be able to adopt (and influence) kids.
That's pretty questionable if you ask me.
The last time I jokingly said “I’m feeling rather gay today” I got legitimately propositioned.... So I avoid doing that ;)
You know...there are two ways one could interpret that....
Are you now....or have you ever been...A homosexual?
/McCarthy ;)
RE: Are you now....or have you ever been...A homosexual?
Some people can respond — depends on what stage of life and the mood I am in... and of course, the situation.
All too true. Kidding aside, Such are the benefits of situational ethics.
The children don’t need to receive “that” kind of love. Considering the fact that “gay fathers” have no problems seeing their natural children molested by friends and strangers, I doubt they would have a problem with adopted ones. In fact, some gays specifically adopt children to have a source of underage pass around sex partners. You probably didn’t hear about the Duke University employee who decided to adopt a black infant. (He said it was easier to get them and they are too young to tell anyone what’s happened to them.) He shopped that boy to friends, acquaintances, and strangers on line. No one, not his “partner,” the other gays on line who watched him do it, or the other people in his deviant gay enclave did a single thing to save that infant boy.
That is just the beginning with the problem of gay adoption. Families are necessary for society because they are the first unit of society any child is exposed to. If the child’s first and formative encounter is with deviance, there is little chance those children will grow to be normal. That anyone could possibly advocate children being placed in that situation shows how little concern people have for either children or society today.
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.