Replies

Well, I am guessing/hoping you are being sarcastic.

My best friend is gay, and a freeper, and had it not been for him I would not have found this site years ago and posted so much here (not under this name, left and came back of own accord, was also a site donor for years here).

I don't see one's sexuality as the problem, pedophiles and sex freaks come from both sides of the fence.

Am I against gay agendas, the left, etc? Damn right I am. But I don't see being gay as the main factor in this case or others. I see personal responsibility as the main factor - and in this case foley messed up in that arena.

The dems are hypocrites in this arena to be sure, they only care about screwups when it is our party doing such. Shame on them.

But you broadbrush a whole group of people, some of which DO support the right and conservatives, and the belief that people should be free to live their lives the way they see fit.

I remember you were not real fond of Bush back in the day, nor were some others here. Back then we were more focused on better government and leaders, and just as hard on conservatives as we were liberals. We had standards, and those that failed such standards were treated the same.

Dems blow to be sure, but attacking all gays in your post does not seem to help our cause or our side. Maybe I am missing the sarcasm, shame on me if that is the case.

I hope we can stick to attacking the main problem - liberals. And gay does not equal liberal from what I have seen and known in life. But I can see more and more gays moving away from our party with such posts as this. Which is a shame because the gays I know want the same things we do - less government, less crap in education, and more people to be able to choose freely how to live their lives.

---I may get banned for this, who knows. If so - I am signing of then as who I once was, Chance33_98.

Somewhere along the line a "threshold of morality" has to be developed. For years I have spoken with people that carry your point of view of "... people should be free to live their lives the way they see fit." Where does it stop Chessman?
Is it ok to accept the homosexual lifestyle?
Well, why stop there then?
There are people out there that want young children. They want to have sexual relations with them. (In this argument I try to make it a little more personal with people by referring to one of their relatives by name.)
Is it OK that one of these persons who is "sexually oriented" for children is allowed to pursue his/her desires with no consequences? After all it is their "sexual orientation" that is driving their need. Is that behavior allowable?

If it isn't then what gives you the right to say it isn't allowable? What gives you or anyone else the right to tell that individual he/she cannot have sexual relations with children?
Maybe I am confused by definitions these days but I believe to be "conservative" you used to have the Judeo-Christian ethics to base your conservatism on. Those ethics include ZERO tolerance for homosexuality / beastiality etc etc.
Our society has so lost its moral foundation because we can no longer call evil "evil" because we are no longer allowed to use the book that was the foundational writings of what made the USA great! We need to acknowledge that we are accountable to our Creator. We need to look to His writings so we know how to govern. When we ignore His laws we are destined to a life of disorder and decadence.