Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: theothercheek

There is no way that today you could get the NYT to say that a man wanting to put his penis into another man is deviant. Now, opposing Gay marriage they’d call deviant. Not being willing to be PC on every issue, that’s deviant. Indeed, going to church to them is downright queer. But a couple of men wanting to have sex together is a wonderful affirmation of Liberalism that’s as normal to them as Clintons in the White House.


9 posted on 09/02/2007 10:43:49 AM PDT by elhombrelibre (Democrats have plenty of patience for anti-American dictators but none for Iraqi democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: elhombrelibre

If they had written something like, “In the past, we were of the opinion that homosexuals did not belong in the government because [whatever their reason was back then] and even referred to them as “deviants” because [whatever their reason was back then] but we have reversed our position on both counts becasue [whatever their reason is] and urge Republicans to reconsider their position on homosexuals in public life,” I would have had more respect for them. But to attack Republicans for something of which they were also guilty - and for libs, guilt has no statute of limitations so The Times is being hoist on its own petard - is partuclarly galling.


10 posted on 09/02/2007 10:51:01 AM PDT by theothercheek ("Unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything." - U.S. Senate Chaplain Peter Marshall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson