Skip to comments.
Conservatives Warn Parents about Homosexual 'Day of Silence'
CNSNews.com ^
| April 09, 2003
| Robert B. Bluey,
Posted on 04/09/2003 9:05:17 AM PDT by Liz
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-93 last
To: Crusher138
You met half a dozen??? I know a lot of gays and lesbians... probably a lot more than you do.. and I haven't met a single one who said that they KNEW they were straight and then later KNEW they were gay.
I've known some who were dissatisfied with their heterosexual marriages of convenience who didn't want to label themselves "gay", and I've known a lot who experience attractions to both genders, but no one I ever met felt that they "turned".
81
posted on
04/10/2003 6:46:25 PM PDT
by
Qwerty
To: KMG365
Because of the flourishing interest in all things Texas, and the popularity of the show, "Survivor" on CBS-TV, it seems the producers are thinking of mounting a local version tentatively called "Survivor - Texas Style!"
Contestants will start in Dallas, travel to Waco, Austin, San Antonio, back to Houston and down to Brownsville on the border. They'll proceed up to Del Rio, on to El Paso then to Midland, Odessa, Lubbock and Amarillo. They turn back east to Abilene, Fort Worth and Dallas.
Each person will be driving a pink Volvo with a bumper sticker that reads: "I'm gay. I'm a vegetarian. I voted for Al Gore. George Strait no-way. I want Hillary in 2004, and I'm here to confiscate your guns!"
The contestant that makes it back to Dallas, alive, wins.
82
posted on
04/10/2003 6:49:39 PM PDT
by
Liz
To: RAT Patrol
Why can't they fight their political issues amongst adults and stop picking on the kids?Because they know that kids have minds that arte still easily shaped. They can convince them that homosexuality is normal, not deadly, behavour. And, while young enough can make them think that they are homosexual.
Homosexuality KILLS. Stop the killing!
83
posted on
04/10/2003 6:53:03 PM PDT
by
69ConvertibleFirebird
(Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
To: Hildy
Would make an interesting research project.
84
posted on
04/10/2003 6:58:37 PM PDT
by
Liz
To: Qwerty
I meant that I know of at least half-a-dozen people who were gay and are now straight and visa-versa. It has been my experience that people will interpret their history to reflect their current status. People who are now gay, but lived straight, will say "I always knew I was gay" or "I always knew I was different" and the straights who were gay say "There was something missing" or "I never felt comfortable...".
What it boils down to me is that there is more choice involved than some would like to admit.
85
posted on
04/11/2003 8:30:48 AM PDT
by
Crusher138
(crush her? I don't even know her!)
To: McNoggin
Faith is NOT and innate characteristic. Agreed.
It is learned and freely chosen behavior.
Faith is a behavior? Did you bump your head before you wrote this? Faith is a state of being NOT an action, a fine point that requires a certain degree of intellect. Actually, you might better understand it as faith is one of those noun things and behavior is one of those verb things. Does that help? Perhaps you are mistaking worship with faith, whichs easily confused especially by those who dont really understand either.
And not a very rational one at that.
Awww
and here we see the real motivation for your post. Trying to rationalize all those miracles, or for you myths, must be very difficult for a person like you. Tell me, are there any other people in history you try to deny? Aristotle? Socrates?
I succussfully left the Christian lifestyle years ago and I haven't looked back. If I can do it, you can too.
Oh now I get it. I didnt read between the lines before. (Sound of hand slapping forehead) Youre gay! Is that why youre denying Christ? I guess I can see why, Paul WAS pretty specific about your behavior.
Listen, next time you feel like posting some dopey tripe bashing Christians leave me out of it because it has no bearing on your pathology of homosexuality. Otherwise, should a coherent thought pass through that melon of yours
hang on to it, frame it, put it on the wall so you can remember it for the years to come, it will make you proud someday.
Comment #87 Removed by Moderator
To: McNoggin
I'm sorry my intellect can't stand up to yours. Thats OK, Im here to help.
So you're saying "faith" is an orientation,
No because orientation is a fluctuating direction of thought and faith is an unchanging state of mind or as I said before, a state of being.
and "worship" is a behavior based on that orientation?
If you apply the above definition to that the answer is yes. Whether or not one worships has no bearing whether or not one has faith.
Listen, get some help for your pathology and stop worrying about whether faith is comparable to your perversion. I know you need to find parables to justify the filth and degradation you inflict upon yourself but in the long run it doesnt help.
Comment #89 Removed by Moderator
To: Crusher138
Sure, people choose whether or not to act on their impulses. It is the attraction that is not a choice.
90
posted on
04/11/2003 7:51:12 PM PDT
by
Qwerty
To: Qwerty
Yeah, and I'm sure arsonists would like us to all accept them because they have always liked playing with fire and we should all just look the other way when they burn down a building.
Kleptomaniacs would also like us to just let them go when they are caught stealing because they just can help it, it is a compulsion they can't ignore. Hey, those stores will never miss it, they have lots of money.
Alcoholics would like to chime in about now. They can't help it if they drink, they just can't stop themselves. Besides, being drunk never hurt anyone...
There are all sorts of attractions and compulsions that are neither healthy nor moral. Just about everyone struggles with something. The difference is the righteous or moral person recognizes the immorality of their actions, owns the action (confession, facing punishment, whatever) and then attempts to live their life without repeating that behavior. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't. The important part is the effort (and the eventual success due to that effort).
The immoral (or amoral) person rationalizes or justifies the actions or behaviors that, while they know are immoral, are either too pleasurable to deny or too strong of a compulsion to easily resist. To further justify their actions and to deflect criticism, they pronounce everyone who sees their behaviors as immoral as being immoral themselves for having a moral stance - truly Orwellian "Good is bad, bad is good" doublethink.
To think that because one has "always known" that one is *blank* is a justification for behaving in an immoral manner would be tantamount to allowing absolute relativism, with every individual being their own arbitrator of what is good or bad. I postulate that given no societal structures or mores to guide or restrict them, most men would be polygamous, leading to a breakdown of the basic family structure, spreading of disease, and other unpleasant consequences. Given no law to stop them the strong would take from the weak.
I realize that I have strayed from the original point so I will tack back over.
***It is the attraction that is not a choice.***
It isn't the attraction society is worried about. It is acting on that attraction, and the demands of those acting on the attraction that every one else accept their immorality, that is the problem.
91
posted on
04/12/2003 8:33:21 AM PDT
by
Crusher138
(crush her? I don't even know her!)
To: Liz
I know I am coming to this conversation late, and that my idea may have already been expressed, but it can't hurt to mention it again.
The schools in my town supported this action, and allowed the students to remain silent as a means of free speech. They not only allowed it, but some of the teachers encouraged it. I am told that at least one of the teachers actually took part and did not speak to her students at all.
So here goes. I wonder if the schools would be as supportive of a group of students who took the same action in protest to abortion? I would assume that the majority of those students would be Christians, and that the "protest" would probably be organized through the churches on a national basis. The participants could hold up little cards annoucing their silence in support of all those who will never have the opportunity to speak for themselves.
It only seems fair that the schools and universities that provided recognition to the rights of free speech of one group would provide it to another group. Wait, I forgot we were dealing with liberals.
92
posted on
04/19/2003 11:57:09 AM PDT
by
Brad C.
To: Brad C.
Oh, please. Christians be accorded free speech? On abortion? That'll be the day. Good idea of yours, though.
93
posted on
04/19/2003 12:15:34 PM PDT
by
Liz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-93 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson