Skip to comments.If you support the homosexual agenda you are anti-Constitution and you'll get the zot from FR!
Posted on 12/18/2010 11:33:01 AM PST by Jim Robinson
A couple more posters got zotted today.
Guess we need another reminder:
If you support the homosexual agenda you are anti-constitution and you'll get the zot from FR. Homosexuals already have the same "rights" as everyone else. God did not grant and the constitution does not guarantee homosexuals any special rights. In fact, the homosexual agenda is a full frontal attack on OUR God-given, constitutionally protected rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, Life, Family, Marriage, Pursuit of Happiness, etc.
I don't want it on FR and won't have it on FR.
Like abortion, if you support the homosexual agenda on FR, your account here will be zotted!
Don't like it? Tough frickin Shinola! Get the hell OFF this conservative site!!
Open your freaking eyes.
2012 can't come soon enough. All this crap needs to end.
2012 we take it all back!
The Senate final vote. 65 - 31 the motion to concur for 2965 is adopted ...10 seconds ago.
“Queers have been the downfall of all the great empires.”
- Johnny Kimberley, The 4th Earl of Kimberley, Aristocrat 1924-2002
That was a refreshing read! Couldn’t agree more!
Tolerant but not stupid! Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesnt mean you have to approve of it. If you had to like it itd be called the Museum of Acceptance. Tolerate means youre just putting up with it. You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off. Jesus tapdancing Christ! - Mr. Garrison
Thank you sir!
“I do not know Jim Rob nor his vision for FR.”
Heh heh ... new here? Don’t read the headers on websites before you join? Think the place is NPR? Do you make contributions? Know why they are needed?
Thank you Jim. This is a moral issue that Congress has no business being involved in.
AND VERY SICK AS WELL AND VERY UN-AMERICAN.
If this is accurate, can we add Bolton to the list (along with Romney) of candidates that FR will not support?
Are you clueless? I know you are spineless by posting this to ozone rather than an individual.
Defending and standing up for principles that are the very foundation of our great nation is NOT comparable to what "Westboro Babptist" is notoriously infamous for. IF you imply that hatred of evil drives the opposition you are probably slightly correct; however, I would suggest love of country primarily premises the opposition to the homosexual agenda.
Really it is a simple black or white -yeah or nay issue -do you choose to put the principles premising authentic freedom above the advancement of moral relative tyranny that disregards the principles premising authentic freedom OR are you just another useful idiot...
Don't waste your time he's already been zotted. Thankfully.
If I may explain...
There is a line between supporting our Constitutional Rights to free speech and allowing liberals to abuse those rights in a private forum.
Do you allow homo’s the use of your home to spread their evil agenda?
Would you allow the Westboro Baptist Church to picket at your loved one’s funeral?
Sodomy is a moral and societal evil. How is that open for debate? Why would you argue their right to spread that agenda here in a conservative site?
You are jumping up and down on Jim’s zot button. How that has not gone off on you by now is beyond me.
Amen. Every advance of the queer agenda has had the equal and opposite retreat of the rights of Christians. Just look at what happens in Canada. Christianity is under a multi-pronged attack from multiple sources.
Hypothetically, what if one were opposed to the homosexual agenda, and yet considered “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” a relatively trivial matter? Would that hypothetical person get booted?
I will not support any candidate who is not pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty. Period.
Before the DADT, the military was authorized to ask its recruits and servicemen about their sexual orientation. So, the folks pushing to “repeal” DADT, are they attempting to go back to the way it was before? This has been bugging me the language that has been used. The fact is, they are not not just repealing DADT, they are replacing it. Repealing would simply imply that homosexuals were forbidden to serve, and were subjected to question.
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.