Posted on 08/25/2006 9:53:42 AM PDT by BJClinton
Ever since I announced my bid for the United States Presidency, I’ve been questioned about some of my more radical political opinions. Most of those questions have dealt with my proposed economic policies – for example, the abolition of the IRS and the implementation of the Fair Tax. Today, I offer an answer to questions about why I am opposed to the idea of gays adopting or teaching children.
Several years ago, I began writing columns questioning the so-called gay rights movement. I prefer to call it the “gay privileges” movement because gays are not presently deprived of anything that is rightfully theirs. A gay man has the same right I have to marry a woman. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs.
At the time I decided to express such criticism of the gay agenda, I was not fully opposed to gay adoption. Nor was I absolutely opposed to hiring gay grammar school teachers. My criticism of the gay agenda was narrower than it is today and the tone of my criticism was far more subdued. That all changed when the homosexual rights crowd started to circulate some of my early columns.
Frequently, the criticism would come en masse from gay groups who would post my columns on PRIDE websites or chat rooms at universities like UNC-Greensboro, which is also known as UNC-Gonorrhea. They would work themselves into a fury over my well-reasoned essays and then respond with a flurry of obscenities unfit for reproduction in this column.
Before long, readers identifying themselves as “gay” were threatening to cut off my genitalia, burn my children, rape my wife, and, just to top it all off, kill me, too. Good thing these readers were all “gay.” Otherwise, they might not be so happy.
So, of course, I took the time to survey a number of other conservative columnists to find out where most of their profane and threatening hate mail comes from. The answer is always the same: Without hesitation, they all say it comes from the “gay” community.
Despite the volume and intensity of this gay vitriol, I have always refused to reciprocate with threats of violence or strings of profanity. Instead, I have relied on the far more powerful tool of heavy sarcasm. And that refusal to respond with profanity or violence has had a predictable effect on the gay activists. It has made them much less gay (less happy, that is) and also much more active.
One of their more recent stunts was to get together on a gay website to hatch a plan to destroy my marriage. Actually, they started their plan on one of the Transgendered websites. Since the Transgendered people are so angry, I suppose they are technically classified as “gay,” too.
The first step of their plan to destroy my marriage was to concoct a false story that I once committed adultery. For the record, I have never cheated on my wife. I did, however, attempt to cheat on my wife one time. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get past Ms. Coulter’s bodyguard.
| 1 | 2 |
|
| | Full Article & Comments | | | Next > |
As Americans, our view of national stereotypes is unique.
There is a brilliant scene in one of those tom clancy movies. Brad Pitt and Harrison Ford are playing pool in some suburban bar and the patrons start throwing around national stereotypes. The Brad Pitt character, who is Irish, tenses and waits for violence. All the second, third and four generation Americans laugh it off. A very subtle scene, but it relates a lot.
How does race equate to sexual deviants? I understand the ploy is useful to normalize a mental disturbance, nevertheless, it is still a transparent ploy.
Humans are a sexually dimorphic species, the survival of which depends on the natural attraction between men and women. What is so difficult about figuring out the obvious and ignoring the deviants argument for accepting such mental disturbances?
On the homoped issue: stats show that well over 50% of male homosexuals are in fact homopeds. Have you heard, they have an international organization called NAMBLA? I lived in the Gay, I mean Bay area, south of san Fransicko for 6 years. The practice of homopedia is rampant and has been for several decades. And, as I have stated before, this is nothing new, the Roman male homosexuals bought and sold catamites (young boys) many centuries ago. This is part of the lifestyle folks. Don't expect male homos to talk about it in normal company. They have yet to come out of the closet with this one.
As Americans, our view of national stereotypes is unique.
There is a brilliant scene in one of those tom clancy movies. Brad Pitt and Harrison Ford are playing pool in some suburban bar and the patrons start throwing around national stereotypes. The Brad Pitt character, who is Irish, tenses and waits for violence. All the second, third and four generation Americans laugh it off. A very subtle scene, but it relates a lot.
This practice is hardly confined to gay men...c'mon, now...
Ahhh, you know the real facts from experience.... not what someone said you should think.
Exactly on point.
I've said this before, but it needs repeating.
Walk into any large restaurant or bar in any large city and you'll see the grandchildren and great grandchildren of guys who would have been at each other's throats in a murderous rage less than a century ago. And, oddly, their descendants aren't in a murderous rage. They are simply enjoying each other's company.
That's really the genius of America. And, I believe, at least part of why some backward societies hate us.
Using that practice as the essential defining point of "who I am" is confined to gay men.
Any normal person would consider such self-definition to be a sign of mental illness.
Again, you go with race verses someone wanting to stick their penis where fecies gets dumped. Face it...that is the bottom line with gay men.
This practice is hardly confined to gay men...c'mon, now...
I've said this before, but it needs repeating.
Walk into any large restaurant or bar in any large city and you'll see the grandchildren and great grandchildren of guys who would have been at each other's throats in a murderous rage less than a century ago. And, oddly, their descendants aren't in a murderous rage. They are simply enjoying each other's company.
That's really the genius of America. And, I believe, at least part of why some backward societies hate us.
This practice is hardly confined to gay men
Using that practice as the essential defining point of "who I am" is confined to gay men.
Any normal person would consider such self-definition to be a sign of mental illness.
Probably about as nice as you'd stay if someone challenged something you believe strongly in.
I've got two lesbian friends that vote republican. They do it because they support the war on terror, one is ex military, and they are otherwise libertarian and don't like high taxes. They aren't a monolythic group, these 'gays'.
Welcome to FR, member of 3 days.
see how nice they stay.
Probably about as nice as you'd stay if someone challenged something you believe strongly in.
I've got two lesbian friends that vote republican. They do it because they support the war on terror, one is ex military, and they are otherwise libertarian and don't like high taxes. They aren't a monolythic group, these 'gays'.
There will always be debate about how society should behave, this is just one of them.
> See, you are using a fallacy of logic to justify your position. Being of Jewish decent is NOT an option. Being black is NOT an option. Being gay IS an option. I can prove it by showing many examples of gay people going back to healthy relationships.
Interesting. So let's say the societal norm was for you to have relationships with members of the same sex, and you could never marry someone of the opposite sex. Would you:
1. Knuckle under, swallow your revulsion, and go into therapy to learn to love the right brand of gender, OR
2. Quietly live your true self in the shadows, loving likewise inclined members of the opposite sex, in fear of being exposed, OR
3. Live openly as a heterosexual, opening yourself up for ridicule, taunts, insults, and discrimination in hiring and elsewhere.
How do you like those choices? Could YOU change the gender you find attractive?
"A gay man has the same right I have to marry a woman. His waiver of that actual right does not allow him to substitute another “right” he deems more suitable to his needs."
And there you have it. Touche' Mr. Adams, glad to see some "Get it"
Excellent article!
You make an excellent point,durasell.
In the Fifties,it would have been unthinkable to see a black person walking through my hometown.An Asian would have gotten a lot of curious stares.A Mexican would have been assumed to be a gardner or handyman,not a resident.
Things have defintely changed for the better in this country.
Riverman,who remembers the Bad Old Days.
Interesting. So let's say the societal norm was for you to have relationships with members of the same sex, and you could never marry someone of the opposite sex. Would you:
1. Knuckle under, swallow your revulsion, and go into therapy to learn to love the right brand of gender, OR
2. Quietly live your true self in the shadows, loving likewise inclined members of the opposite sex, in fear of being exposed, OR
3. Live openly as a heterosexual, opening yourself up for ridicule, taunts, insults, and discrimination in hiring and elsewhere.
How do you like those choices? Could YOU change the gender you find attractive?
Do you not identify yourself as a heterosexual?
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.