Replies

“What is the difference between this JimRob edict and what Jim Phelps says?”

For one thing, Jim Robinson didn’t say he hates homosexuals, nor did he say that God hates them, either.

He, also, didn’t say that God hates the military, as the Phelps gang says.

You equating Free Republic’s house rules with the Phelps group is obscene, at best.

This is what he said...

“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.”

If you disagree with Mr. Robinson, maybe you should go on your merry way, and stop embarrassing yourself with arguments such as the one addressed in my post.

I would be sorry to see you go, but should you decide to adhere to your opus...........then I wish you a very Merry Christmas, and a happy, prosperous and healthy New Year.

No, I didn’t make that connection between Robinson and Phelps. I know that Robinson loves and respects the military.

However, Robinson is wrong about equating “pro-homosexuality” (which really I am not) with anti-constitution. I have read the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. I saw nothing about homosexuals in there. Are homosexuality and the Constitution mutually exclusive? What is the Constitutional source of this idea?

I _think_ I am still on board here on FR. But here is my quandary. Unlike several vocal freepers, I do not "hate" gays, nor do they disgust me that much. But really that depends on the details and I don't care to go into it. I don't think they are normal, and I think pretending that they are is silly at best, demented at worst. I have a few gay friends and acquaintances and they seem to otherwise be decent people.

I don't exactly know what the "homosexual agenda" is, however. I support basic human rights for ALL people, including the unmarried, etc. I don't consider the military to be normal "society", so I believe they should be allowed to have their own set of rules that can deviate a little from what normal society might have. I thought DADT was a pretty good compromise actually.

I don't seem to have in me, the anti-gay rancor that many freepers have, but I _think_ I am opposed to the "homosexual agenda", just not really sure what that is...