Posted on 04/21/2005 7:46:17 AM PDT by worldclass
Expect some loud braying from the jackasses on the Supreme Court of this is enacted.
They are ready and willing to push judicial activism to the hilt and foster their Euroweenie legal and social agenda of homosexual "rights" and establishment of Atheism as the National "Religion".
HEY back off the Chief you! ;)
It may not be his actual words but it's a fine quote nonetheless. But what does that have to do with gay foster parents mind you?
"Then we should take children away from biological but gay parents (even "chaste" ones)and promiscuous hetero single and "swinger" parents."
And let's be sure to keep all the little boys out of those Catholic schools...la
And like I said you want the words "gay" and "gay" specific laws to use against them in some sort of proxy culture war.
My way of legislation is better because it both preserves indivisuality and individual choices - does not acknowledge gays as a group of any kind and restricts the gay agenda on top of it without giving them ammo.
We are fighting the same fight - but I am fighting smarter.
This statement isn't true, I hate to call someone a liar but you obviously have a bias towards gays. The fact of the matter is gays, and this includes lesbians, fight and bicker as much as heterosexual people. To judge by your statements queers make better parents than heteros.
This is simply not true.Some of them may make good parents but the risk to the child of being pushed into a life style contradictory to the childs natural instincts are too great to risk IMO. We don't need more mentally ill people in the world.
"I think from this Texas legislation instead of trying to solve a problem instead seeks to create a wedge issue and gay bait in order to get votes. This is not governance it is demagoguery."
Would it have been gay-baiting if 10 years ago we in the Peoples Republic of assachusetts had passed an amendment defining marriage?
I think that given the current environment and the agenda of the sodomite lobby that this is simple common sense fortifying of a position.
This is all very complicated, if that's true than the civilized community and human sexuality are far more bazaar than I have previously imagined. But then again, I haven't met alot of people. Maybe you are right.
You seem to have quite the knack for mind-reading...or so you think.
You have zero clue what I was arguing for - reading on down may help.
I think I am pretty accurate - you want specific restrictive laws mentioning gays by name. Tha is fine - I don't support the homo agenda in th eleast - I just think my approach is a better more sustainable one.
Don't blame me for not having a clue....blame yourself for being vague and ambiguous in your original post. I simply responded to what YOU said.
Having read other posts of yours, I think you are simply saying that legislation should be crafted so that it doesn't target sodomites but has the same impact...correct?
Exactly.
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.