Bush's gay-marriage tack risks clash with his base (and a poll)

usa today ^ | 12/17/03

[scripter]

lj - you never received a response about how breakem can't produce any studies disproving or discrediting the studies we cite.

knak - the only response you received was that breakem never complained about everyone bringing up one study. He never cared to comment on the 10 others you listed. Surprised?

John O - you never recieved an apology from breakem, nor did breakem respond to 6 of your posts.

Kevin Curry - breakem, desperately trying to remain blinded to the bigger picture is still trying to convince himself of his own argument. It's nonsense to base rights on behavior. Apparently breakem thinks we should base rights for blacks based on their crime behavior.

breakem never cited that study he keeps talking about so we can take a closer look at his concerns. Surprised?

To my knowledge, breakem never discusses the health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle nor comments on issues of AIDS tainted blood in the military.

breakem, support your statements! We've stated we'll stop posting whatever you can disprove, discredit or rebut.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for summarizing breakem's policies. And in a clear, polite manner!

(Two qualities I could use more of....)

The thread below has been active in the same way with some other players....it seems as though when people side with moral relativism, it's very hard to connect up. Especially if the relativism is camouflage for hedonism.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1041494/posts

[knak]

Not surprised at all. I'm still waiting to find out how he's disproved all of us.

[little jeremiah]

Try checking out that other thread for some interesting debate... I really do think that it boils down to moral relativism, with one's own mind and desires the gauge by which to measure everything.

[knak]

Thanks, I'll check it out. I will continue to argue about this until it is "out of my face" too. Mainly because I don't want my child being taught it's so great, wonderful and normal behavior.

[little jeremiah]

I agree. The homosexual activists' stated goal is to eliminate the age of consent, later changed to lowering it since we "weren't ready" for that one. This is in the 1972 Gay Rights Platform - the elimination of the age of consent, and in an argument I had with two very aggressive lesbians (pounded on my door at 10PM because they saw a bumper sticker on my car they didn't like!). The lesbians admitted that about the elimination of the age of consent when I tossed that out. They admitted that it was too much for the sheeple to accept, so it was changed to "lower".

Well, in the Netherlands the age of consent for male to male sex is now 12! And the Supreme Court Justices (the evil ones) have stated (in the Texas sodomy case) that they need to look at the laws and standards of other countries to figure out what our Constitution means. The Netherlands was mentioned.

Anyone who doesn't see horrors ahead is either purposely blindfolded, fingers in ears saying "La La La La La La" very loudly, or likes the horrors. Or just hasn't taken the trouble to educate themselves. Reading FR is the best education anyone could have in this regard.

[knak]

Anyone who doesn't see horrors ahead is either purposely blindfolded, fingers in ears saying "La La La La La La" very loudly, or likes the horrors. Or just hasn't taken the trouble to educate themselves. Reading FR is the best education anyone could have in this regard.

doesn't that drive you insane????

[little jeremiah]

It makes me alternately very sad, very angry, very scared, and very thankful. The thankful part is that by the mercy of God I can see the truth, and know that ultimately His will will prevail, and that He is the Supreme authority.

[scripter]

Not surprised at all. I'm still waiting to find out how he's disproved all of us.

Still nothing from Baghdad breakem Bob. When it comes to the facts on homosexuality, Baghdad breakem Bob can only misdirect the discussion and misrepresent the truth.

[baxter999]

Sorry not to get back to you. I only get on here occasionally. I'm obviously puzzled by your comments. Nothing mean-spirited in them. Of course like many critics here you weren't specific other than with your name-calling. (mean-spirited?)

If you have anything specific to object to, I'd love to answer your objections. Since I only mentioned a couple of facts and ended with my concern for these unfortunate people, I don't really know exactly what is bothering you.

Please be specific and support your views (as I have by citing the CDC for example) and I'll gladly answer any of your questions.

What is so fascinating is that you are so quickly judgemental in your response. I advise a bit of tolerance. You will find that an open, respectful attitude will get you a lot more respect than having the presumption to grade someone else without even stating what you are grading and why.

Regards

[baxter999]

"Voting for someone who cannot win is always a good strategy"

And voting for someone who can win but shouldn't, is a worse strategy.

[verity]

And voting for someone who can win but shouldn't, is a worse strategy.

That is convoluted logic.