But you can disagree with homosexuality without deliberately setting off their worse fears. My point is, many of them could be induced to vote for the same person you vote for, if they were not afraid that our hostility to them will be detrimental to their well-being if the candidate of our choice were in power.
I do not and will not call it "normal". I do not support it, and am against it as a matter of course. Homsexual unions, homsexual advocacy, recognizing gays as an official sexual orientation and laws asssociated witht that, are all part and parcel of the same problem.
I do not say these things hatefully no more than I hate anyone else with what I consider to be severe emotiaonla or mental problems. If there behoavior becomes detreimental to society, then measures must bne taken to address that danger.
Today, our society, and many politicians in particular, do not want to admit the self evident and therefore rather than addressing a problem, they are being cajoled, bribed, and sweet talked into calling something bad, good or normal...or what's worse, as politicians, many are pandering to a problem simply to garner votes. It does a terrible disservice to society as a whole, and to those who are part of the life style and most adversely affected by it.
So, I do not hate the individuals, but I am firmly against the life style and see it as destructive to the very fabric of our society and therefore our peace, well being, and ultimately our liberty.
I am sure such statements will make people involved in that life style uncomfortable, particularly if their aim is to be accepted as and integrated into normal society in any case.
Frankly, I really don't believe that. I'm sure that today 90%+ of homosexuals vote (of the ones that do vote) for liberal Democrats--so firmly have the Democrats ingratiated themselves with the sexually amoral (which includes homosexuals by definition) "community."
In the same way that a lot of pro-abortion people would vote Republican but for that stubborn pro-life policy position, I'm sure a lot of homosexuals would vote Republican but for that stubborn pro-family and traditional morality position.
Pragmatically it doesn't make sense either. Homosexuals in the general population make up something less than 2%. Why chase after that tiny number of votes...the great majority we will never get anyway? Doing so would definitely alienate much more than 2%; those very conservative voters who are the Republican base.
Ann Coulter was rude and crude to mention the word "f*ggot" it is true, and it was a lapse in judgment (even though it is true our twisted society has more of a cow about that, then say something like the existance of NAMBLA). Mainstream conservatives don't approve of using insulting language, even of people involved in immoral lifestyles (one doesn't for example here the word "wh*re" in polite society).
However, to approve and accept the lifestyle people are choosing to live--which is destroying them--is too high a price to pay for a small fraction of 2% of the vote.
I consider homosexuality to be deviant behavior. Deviant - not the norm. I rank it there with beastality, pedophila, and all other types of criminal behavior. I care not for the opinion of any deviant person. Just as Rudy threw the money back in the face of the Saudi who tried to bribe him, so would I do so to any other deviant person.