Posted on 05/14/2004 8:52:04 AM PDT by xsysmgr
Ten Things That Would Be Different If The 12 Apostles Had Been Gay
10. The Last Supper would have been brunch.
09. The Beatitudes would start, "Fabulous are they....."
08. Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem screams for a production number with lots of ostrich feather palm fronds and a large oyster shell, instead of just a donkey and some palm leaves.
07. The water at the wedding feast of Canaan would not have been changed to wine, but to extra dry Bombay Sapphire martinis with a touch of Curacao for color.
06. The temple would not only have been cleansed of money changers, but redecorated as well.
05. Mary's hair would have been flawless.
04. The Gospels would be Matthew, Mark, Lance and Bruce.
03. Priests would have torrid affairs with altar boys......wait. Never mind.
02. Jesus would never wear white after Labor Day.
01.The Sermon on the Mount would have been a musical.
Good article by Derbyshire, as usual. Guy's got a nice butt, too...
Woof. And all these years I thought the "drill" part of your screen name had to do with a Black and Decker instead of a wayward pecker...
I'm a homophobe and was born that way, it's part of my genetics.
Please be tolerant and loving, can't we all just get along?
AWESOME!!!
I like the argument that can be made from the anecdote about the pregnant woman--would a Lefty, who support both gays and abortion, support an abortion if the woman didn't want her child to be gay?
Homophobic??? Hell I ain't afraid of 'em. I just don't like 'em.
Mega Dittos
A Brilliantly Written piece, indeed.
.
This suggests that nearly all men with SSAD between the ages of 40-49 are infected with HIV/AIDS.
BTTT
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Another Cheering Article - read every word, you'll be glad you did.
I particularly liked this part:
"Anyone who does not give whole-hearted, roaring approval to the entire homo-agenda must, must, be tarred as a stump-toothed knuckle-dragging primitive, probably afflicted with grave psychiatric problems and hopelessly out of touch with the zeitgeist. If you are not totally on board with absolutely every tiny point of homo-dogma, then you are a sick, poisonous bag of cruelty and evil, who must be destroyed."
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
A while ago I read about a study that found that most people were NOT homophobic...ie fearful of homosexual. Most people, by a LARGE margin were DISGUSTED by homosexuals.
Results for query "disgust":
taedet se : to be disgusted at.
taedium, tedium : disgust, weariness, boredom.
Soo People who are repelled by homosexuality are homotaedets. Interesting that it is the same root as tedious. There is nothing more tedious than homosexuality at this time.
Noel Coward was a positive queer role model.
Besides making us laugh, he actually undertook serious secret missions during WWII.
Standards must be maintained, surely!
Why are we always called homophobic? I don't fear, homosexuals. I just believe there is a huge difference between tolerance and acceptance. It seems we are supposed to accept and even embrace the homosexual agenda.
This whole article is good, but I want to agree with this point in particular in a host of good points. I believe College indoctrination is largely responsible for those poll numbers, and as folks get older and raise families and ask questions like "What is best for children?" they will move to a different view, one that sees homosexual relations as incompatible with child-rearing in most cases.
I too am a Tolerant Traditionalist. Call me a homophobe if that isnt 'good' enough for ya. In a truly free society, we MUST preserve the right to have moral differences in views, including the right to consider some sexual acts immoral. Without it, we've merely traded one set of narrow prejudices for another.
The homosexual community is normaphobic.
What will be really warped and sick is if some lesbians are able to 'order' a daughter lesbian from the sperm bank/donor etc.
Since a phobia is an irrational fear, "homophobia" is a brush many militant gays can use to paint anyone who is in disagreement with their agenda as irrational. There cannot, as the author stated, be any principled disagreement. Anyone who opposes any part of the agenda is a hate-filled neanderthal insecure about their own sexuality.
Good article. I like how he even takes their 'newspeak' terminology and uses it against them. Personally I refuse to use their word. I'm homonauseous.
Good point. Not only is the word "homophobia" an invented word to be used as a propaganda tool, but the very word "homosexual" itself was invented by a German homosexual in the late 1800's or early 1900's for the purpose of creating a sense of special community among those who had a proclivity towards same sex sodomy. The correct words, IMHO, are pederast and sodomite. Just neutral words that describe actions. Or SSADs - those with Same Sex Attraction Disorder.
But I use the word "homosexual" on this forum so as not to offend those who might still be fence-sitters.
Of course, what they call each other and themselves in San Francisco is another topic entirely.
"The Pink Swastika" by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams has tremendous background information on the "gay rights" movement and Nazi Germany, where it began. I highly reccommend it. Available on Amazon.com or at http://www.defendthefamily.com/ or http://www,abidingtruth.com/
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.