Why is it not permissible to criticize homosexuality?
Here’s what gets me — There is a lot of talk in recent years about “safe sex” and criticism of heterosexuals who are promiscuous and spread sexually transmitted diseases. They are spreading diseases and having unplanned pregnancies, and are criticized for doing so. Random heterosexual sexual behavior can have bad consequences.
Why then, can’t we criticize the homosexual behaviors that spread diseases and have bad consequences? Why can’t we talk about certain dangers of homosexual behavior, just as we’re allowed to speak about certain dangers of certain heterosexual behavior?
I think there is a double standard involved, and we’re not supposed to criticize anything related to homosexuality, even if it has to do with dangers to their health. Instead of focusing on risky behaviors, all too often the homosexual community lashes out at people like Ronald Reagan who allegedly didn’t do enough to fight AIDS.
This seems to be getting awfully close to a religious test, especially when the paper he wrote that is being used in the litmus test was written for his Methodist denomination.
We've learned that the human sexes aren't actually complementary?
I hate to say this, but I hope Bush pulls the nomination. The United Methodist Church needs him to stay on the Judicial Council. We are just starting to turn back the tide, and he is a reliably sane vote.
RFK Jr. also called anyone who questioned the scientific theories of man made global warming a “traitor” to the US government (there is no other kind of treason).
The Stalinists on the Left are getting ready to criminalize political dissent.
Thay, thouldn’t that be thibboleth?
The problem is that we don’t have any politicians who are willing to stand up and fight this garbage head on. That’s the problem. The only way this will become a litmus test is if we LET IT.
Roman homosexuality wasn't about love; it was about dominance. The homo-eroticism to which Paul referred in Romans was Greek in character.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
They'll see defeat on this, too. The more they force the issue, the more the truth will, shall we say, "come out of the closet."
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Click FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search for a list of all related articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
This Administration makes Chamberlain look like Churchill.
Set that to music and I'll bet it's a real toe-tapper.
It’s just getting harder and harder to find a church that disapproves of homosexuality.
‘Opposition to abortion is already considered a bar to high office, at least in the minds of most US Senators. Opposition to “gay rights” is really just a complementary litmus test.’
I don’t think so. Half of the population of the United States might desire to have an abortion, or at least the availability of it (women).
Less than five percent of the population sees the same gender as they are and thinks ‘sex’ or ‘love’.
Only in the minds of the media. If a Republican candidate came out and said that he finds homosexual behavior to be wrong, unnatural, and disordered, but that he understands that many peoeple are afflicted with homosexual desires and he sympathizes with their plight, every pro-homo GOP vote he lost would be made up with two anti-homo blue-collar and minority democrat votes.
No. In fact his willingness to speak truthfully regardless of political pressure is hugely in his favor from where I sit.