Replies

In that case Rush is deaf and blind because he isn't aware of what the homosexuals are doing to indoctrinate our children and are continuously push, push, pushing their agenda down our throats. Oh, I guess he doesn't give a damn either about our military and how they are openly working to destroy it.

If he did care he would be using his program to speak out and use his influence to stop the perversion of homosexuality that is overwhelming our country and the world.

Watch this Video of Rush’s View on Gay Marriage for instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06G9TycwKEw

Does this show that he is deaf and blind to what homosexuals are doing ? (I’m talking about the activists)

There are homosexuals who don’t push their agendas on our faces (they just want to be left alone living their private lives) and there are those who do (FORCING people to celebrate their lifestyle).

Rush DIFFERENTIATES between these two kinds of homosexuals.

He does not quarrel with the former but with the later.

If he did care he would be using his program to speak out and use his influence to stop the perversion of homosexuality that is overwhelming our country and the world.

Did you see that Rush has bought into the hoax that homosexuality is biological:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=159285

I found myself reflecting on the moral and intellectual confusion that bedevils this subject as I read, in the same article that reports his fears, that Rush Limbaugh "regards homosexuality as, most probably, biologically determined." The article goes on to say that "while he opposes gay marriage as culturally subversive, he has no problem with gay civil unions."

Does anyone really understand what it means to say that homosexuality is biologically determined? All the physical reactions we associate with human sexuality have a biological basis. But does this mean that they are no longer a matter of human choice and responsibility? People talk as if sexual preferences are like skin color, matters determined by natural processes beyond the control of the individual. But if this is true, why is only the homosexual preference removed from the realm of moral responsibility, and not the preference for children, or animals or violent sexual assault?