Posted on 01/31/2005 4:41:14 PM PST by newsgatherer
In a contentious debate between myself and some radical 'gays' who support the teaching of the 'gay' lifestyle to children, one of them asked me if and when I had 'chosen' to be heterosexual. "Was it at age 3, 6, 13, 19?" he asked, "Or did you (a female) just 'naturally' gravitate towards boys or men without any outside pressure or force?" This question, laden with implied meaning, is a favorite tactical 'trap' set by 'gays' for unsuspecting and unprepared heterosexuals. It plays upon and manipulates our consciences so as to cause us to feel guilty; it lures us into setting aside logic and reason and calls upon us to be led by emotion; it purposefully lends itself to creating confusion. Its' underlying premise is that 'gay' behavior is the result of 'orientation', a meaningless, nonsensical term meant to fool us into believing in the existence of a hitherto unheard of third gender or race. Thus we are coaxed into concluding that 'gayness' and heterosexuality must be the same and therefore 'gayness' is deserving of 'inclusion, sensitivity, and rights.' This is nothing but a cleverly crafted fable, but to dissent against it is to be guilty of hate, 'homophobia,' bigotry, and racism.
My response, just below, seemingly disarmed them and after calling me a few obligatory names, they quit the debate.
"There was no 'choice'........there was never any question........my gravitation towards the opposite sex occured as naturally as breathing air. Now for yourself, 'something' occured that interfered with your natural 'gravitational' process towards the opposite sex and manhood that, in effect, stunted it in much the same way as a baby duck can have its natural progression towards becoming a mature duck interfered ...
(Excerpt) Read more at christian-news-in-maine.com ...
Hi, I like the part about the Duck.
My friend in Kansas email my this. He said Kansas is about to vote on this constitutional amendment.
He ask for help on a poll.
Should the Kansas Constitution be amended to define marriage and civil unions as between one man and one woman only? Poll ends friday.
http://www.hdnews.net/
This headline would be really funny (albeit redundant) in Spanish.
BTTT!
LOL! That's what I thought, too!
For those Freepers not in on the joke, "pato" (duck, in Spanish) is a word used to refer to a gay man.
pato o pato?
OK, go ahead and give it to us in spanish.
Good letter and it looks like a good website starting up.
Good fortune to you folks. I passed the link to a few folks.
Should the Kansas Constitution be amended to define marriage and civil unions as between one man and one woman only?
Yes 61.6% 53
No 37.2% 32
No Opinion 1.2% 1
Even with this argument it still doesn't appear that gays chose to be that way. I do subscribe to this idea though, I would imagine their relationships with their parents would cause them to gravitate towards one sex or the other. But still it isn't a choice they made, they just feel more comfortable around one of their own sex.
I believe that is the point Linda is making here.
Hey, thank you, we appreciate it.
Thank you. I vote yes.
I had some friends in Denver that raised rabbits and Pekinese dogs for sale. Both were allowed out in their large fenced backyard. Everyone of their puppies would start to run and then end up hopping across the yard after about one or two steps. One of the funniest things I ever saw. The dogs hopped like bunnies when they ran for the rest of their lives.
I like the duck analogy. I'll have to use it next time I talk to one of my crazy liberal friends (few and far between- can't stand talking to most liberals.)
Patos y patos? LOL!
Voted
R: Un pato!
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.