Posted on 07/12/2004 3:30:06 PM PDT by AngieGal
Where have you been? Schools are already required to teach "homosexual" acts in sex ed! Have been for about 10 years. They call it: "AIDS education"
Well, your kids are safe-ER...but no kid is safe in America anymore. Most kids are abused by relatives and close family friends. Rosie O'Donnell and Melissa Ethridge are two well known lesbians who were so abused.
Teens are big abusers now days.
If you live around other people, attend church and socialize with family members, your children are at risk.
We can not be hermits, because that isn't good for kids either.
But, this is why we must be involved in politics. We must stop electing RINO'S and democrats! No matter how much we like them! Our kids are shaped by the society we live in. We MUST shape our society to reflect our values. We must not compromise.
Exactly why homeschooling is in the sights of all 'good' liberals. It is viewed as the breeding ground of "discrimination" and "hate" speech. Liberal/homosexuals like to equate such education to Islamic terror schools.
The first step to conquer our country, was the breakdown of morality in society. "If it feels good, do it". Then came the acceptance of homosexual behavior as an "alternative" lifestyle. Now it is legalization of homosexual marriage.
Then as a consequence of all this, comes the criminalization of all Judeo-Christian teaching, including homeschooling.
If we only type our complaints and don't get involved, it WILL happen....SOON! Just look at the marriage amendment...We must change out the Senate! We must get rid of those who voted against this bill. No matter how much we like them, they must go.
I blame the state of Kansas and all the oblivious taxpayers, the self-serving legislators, and the amoralistic media who all play their parts -- look the other way, sell their allegiances, actually push for these immoral policies.
Ahh - good point.
Very good point.....a wife can be "used" un-naturally. Sodomy is wrong, no matter what sex the partner is.
I think what is most confusing is that what some might call foreplay...others are calling "oral sex".
If the conclusion is achieved in the naturally designed area, can the act really be labelled 'oral'?
One of the big problems faced by pro-family conservatives is that they are often portrayed as hateful scape-goaters. Although it is the left that, in fact, more often engages in hateful scapegoating, it is conservatives who, in many people's minds, are associated with it.
I think, therefore, it is important to cast arguments against homosexual marriage in a way which cannot be misconstrued as being hateful to homosexuals.
The issue is not whether a child's parents are heterosexual, but rather the child has both a mother figure and a father figure. I would think that a child who was raised by a man and woman who were siblings of each other, and happened to be gay (whose partners did not participate in child-rearing), might be better off than a child raised by two men (perhaps brothers of each other), who happened to be straight (and whose partners were likewise not involved with the children). On the other hand, if the people caring for a child are heterosexual, they are more likely to supply the father figure and mother figure the child needs.
The term "sodomy" can be applied to many different acts. I would suspect that for many people, the specific act is probably more important than the sex of the participants. I would expect that if one were to ask people to rate different acts on a scale of 'icky' to 'just fine', that mutual masturbation by two men or two women would probably be, on average, judged less icky than anal sex between a man and a woman. So the fact that people view anal sex by two men as more 'icky' than oral sex my a man and woman would not necessarily imply an anti-gay bias.
In practical terms, though, it should be noted that there's a difference between gay anal sex and hetero: of all the sexually-transmitted-disease vectors, anal sex by an infected male is the most effective; it is far more effective than any vector by a female. Consequently, if an infected male performs anal sex upon another male and transmits the disease, the recipient is more likely to retransmit the disease than would be a female who received it.
BTW, I have sometimes commented that liberalism includes a belief that it's more noble to curse the darkness than to change a light bulb. I don't like to ascribe motives to people, but given that AIDS risks are well-known, I sometimes wonder if people somehow think it's 'noble' to contract AIDS to help expose how the evil Republicans are responsible for its spread. There is some very bizarre social pathology at work, which I haven't really seen addressed, which is much scarier than the virus itself.
Connecting the dots won't get much easier...
Are some of you secular humanist "conservatives" content to have the Visgoths banging at your front door?
In a nutshell....
And don't forget -- anything that helps make a mockery of "God's Law" aids and abets the "new" religion -- Secular Humanism.
We also need to put an end to gay adoption, even when they do it as "single" people. The argument for gay mentoring in the Big Brothers org. was that some parents might want gay mentors. Okay. Who chooses for the child in state custody who has no caring parent? It is irresponsible to put a child, especially a troubled or homeless child, in the care of someone who is openly immoral. If they wanted to hide it then we could talk.
Everyone fighting gay marriage had better start fighting for the kids -- not just their own either. That's who is really harmed in all of this.
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.