Democratic Candidates Attempt to Outdo Opponents in "Gayness" in Public Gay-"Debate"

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | August 10, 2007 | John Jalsevac

[fwdude]

"I don't think you understand the question," said Etheridge helpfully after Richardson gave his heretical answer.

This is such a hilarious picture. "Now, bring out the thumb screws so we can help him 'understand'."

If Richardson had any balls, he'd reply, "I don't think you understand my answer, you overrated, mindless, homo-activist dyke."

[ashtanga]

My friend, you sound like me, but a trifle more cynical. I don’t much care for Orwell, but he was quite good at this sort of thing. Just what are the thugs trying to say when they say nothing? This game is great stimulus for the old bean, I’ll tell you. I’ve been trying to figure out how the word “religion” got replaced by “faith” in the government-media complex. Perhaps you can clue me in.

[Wilhelm Tell]

How did the word "religion" get replaced by the word "faith" in the government media complex? I do not know, but come to think of it, religion implies some sort of order, a system of belief, dogma, restraints on behavior -- someone holds you accountable to a standard. While "faith" could mean anything. It could mean adherance to some dogma, but it could also be any vague, New-Agey notion. "Faith" is also handy because it is "personal," as in, "I will not tell you whether or not I am a Christian because my faith is a very personal matter to me." Religion, on the other hand, has a public nature to it as one identifies oneself as belonging to a community of Christians, Jews, Muslims or whatever.

It is similar to how conservatives speak of "the family" while leftists speak of "families." We have a specific idea of what "the family" means. "Families," on the other hand. Could be anything. Three transgendered men who live together and love a goat could be a "family" but they do not follow the standard model of what "the family" is.