Posted on 10/12/2004 7:25:08 AM PDT by unlearner
I don't know what "libertinism" is (does it come with a stuned beeber?), nor do I think I have ever promoted a "gay agenda".
But I've never assumed conservatives are frustrated and sour.
Only most that inhabit FR.
You say that because you (and me, and pretty much every straight man in America) has grown up in a society where they did not have the option of having sex with as many sexual partners as they want.
If women were wired like men, things would be quite different.
"I still can't figure out why you care so much about this issue, though.'
I care about the homo-agenda because I care about thousands of young people getting recruited, seduced, and molested into the "gay" life. I care because I care about the future of this country.
It's crystal clear that your denials of having any interest in the subject are a smokescreen. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be arguing with me.
And it's obvious what my point was. If I wanted to play games, I'd play chess.
You said freepers were obsessed with their kids becoming gay - and I pointed out that thousands of child molesters are homosexual - and many children who are molested by homosexuals become homosexual themselves.
Clear? Of course it was.
It's ironic that the very same people who say that a homosexual should not flaunt their sexuality in public are the same people who then turn around and publicly question others' sexual preferences
I'm just making a joke. ;)
Personally, living as a dog - humping every female around - doesn't interest me. Some peoples' animal instincts are tempered with morals, and some people derive more happiness and pleasure from adhering to moral behavior than indulging animal instincts.
Some, on the other hand, can only be restrained by laws, fear, and social customs.
The more inner discipline a person has, the less outer discipline they need. That's why a hedonistic society which rejects moral absolutes soon disintegrates and needs a totalitarian style government in short order.
So "frustrated and sour" means any that disagree with your world view?
Look up libertinism in the dictionary, it should be in the paragraph describing libertine.
I may be apathetic as to homosexuality, but I am very much interested in the image that conservatives project to others.
Prove your apathesis by not promoting the homo agenda for a change and slamming those who believe in moral absolutes.
Please provide evidence of where I have "promoted" the homosexual agenda. I know you can't.
You're like CBS and ABC - pretending to be "neutral" while in the lap of the left.
I never claimed to be neutral. I am quite opposed to zealots, of any ideology or religion.
Now, tell me which logical fallacy category would your iquiring of the sexual orientation of those who seem to not be offended by homosexuals fall into? It's rather humorous...almost childlike. "Oh, you aren't offended by them! You must be one!".
And yet you and those like you are the ones who get all bent out of shape by any who oppose your hedonist world view. What do you think about "hatespeech" laws? What do you think about mandatory (such as in CA schools K-12) pro-"gay" cirriculum?
Uh, no. Those were your words. I can handle people who disagree with me. It doesn't break my heart.
Trust me- you have neither the intellectual nor the physical ability to make me tremble.
Just pointing out JR's position and the purpose for FR, which you seem to have no interest in, other than opposing it.
Please point out any statements of mine that go against FR's position or purpose.
Just wondered, since you so adamantly criticize those who support traditional morality. And then cast innuendo on them as well. IOW, social conservatives are suspect just for holding to traditional morality, must be closet homosexuals. That was your innuendo, and it is a standard "gay" agenda talking point.
You are not offended by homosexuality (don't know whether you are offended by kids being indoctrinated by the "gay" agenda in schools or not) but you are offended by those of us who are opposed. So you have a right to your viewpoint, and we do not? You, who are so tolerant of homosexuals, can't tolerate social conservatives?
Molestation is one thing- that is clearly illegal, and rightfully so. However, assuming that both parties to a homosexual encounter are of the legal age of consent, what business of yours is that encounter?
You said freepers were obsessed with their kids becoming gay - and I pointed out that thousands of child molesters are homosexual - and many children who are molested by homosexuals become homosexual themselves.
So go after molestors. I have a friend who works for the DOJ, prosecuting child pornographers. He couldn't care less about the sexual orientation of the molestor- a criminal is a criminal.
"I never claimed to be neutral. I am quite opposed to zealots, of any ideology or religion."
So in other words, you're not a conservative. You don't agree with the words of JR I quoted above. You consider him a zealot.
As far as your support of the "gay" agenda, it's all over the place, on this thread.
You claim of apathy is pathetic. You are a zealot, just on the side of hedonism and atheism.
Hatespeech laws are lame. Just punch the person in the mouth. That used to work fine.
What do you think about mandatory (such as in CA schools K-12) pro-"gay" cirriculum?
I have several friends who are public school teachers in Cali (that's where I live). They haven't seen any of this happening yet in their schools. I do not agree with a pro or anti gay curriculum. Fags go to hell or Love your local drag queen messages have no place in public schools. As part of that, I don't think the public schools should be teaching anything about sex other than in biology class. Nothing about birth control or abstinence. It's your job as a parent, and your community religious leaders to teach your kid sex before marriage lands them in hell/birth control is the devil's tool/whatever. The schools should not be teaching pro- or anti- gay anything. Period.
So, to be a conservative, one has to be a zealot?
You don't agree with the words of JR
Nonsense. I don't agree with you, however.
You consider him a zealot.
Nonsense. I consider you a zealot. You're the mirro-image of the radical gay activist, in a lot of ways.
As far as your support of the "gay" agenda, it's all over the place, on this thread.
Specific example, please. Point out a statement of mine that supports the gay agenda.
You are a zealot, just on the side of hedonism and atheism.
I couldn't care less whether people live their lives as hedonists versus as puritans, nor do I care whether people are deeply religious or atheistic. That makes me a zealot?
As I have said before, I am not tolerant of anyone who would wish to tell me what I may read, watch, listen to, attend, etc.
Ummm...I didn't do that, bozo.
Your little iunnuendo, so much like that of a 12 year old, was that anyone not anti-homoseuxal must be a homosexual.
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.