Posted on 04/08/2015 7:30:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The smoke is clearing after three weeks of gay political hysteria: first a dust-up involving Dolce and Gabbana followed by threats of a boycott that fizzled, then an outbreak of derangement over a religious law in Indiana. Take note of how differently these two incidents ended, because there is a lot of hidden intelligence to be gained by reading between the lines: the attack on Dolce and Gabbana seems to have failed, while the pushback against Indiana’s and Arkansas’s religious-freedom bills ended in victory for gay marriage enthusiasts.
Dolce and Gabbana barely backtracked on their comments about IVF, yet they survived Elton John’s fierce attacks. They showed that a key argument against gay marriage – i.e., gay marriage commoditizes children and makes it easier for oppressors to deny them a mother and father – could be made in stark, understandable terms, and the person making such a statement could, with a modicum of bravery, survive the backlash.
Is there any doubt as to why things progressed as they did? Once it was clear that neither Dolce nor Gabbana was going to relent, the media shifted all its fire to the obscure issue of an innocuous law about religious freedom in Indiana. When gay marriage monomaniacs are hatching plots, there are no unexplainable coincidences.
Why the sudden switch from artificial procreation to religious liberty?
After three years of intense immersion in family politics (and I mean intense), I have noticed that gay-marriage supporters always want to debate religious liberty. You can and should engage them on the topic of religious liberty, but be aware that they are usually thinking that you are playing into their hands when you do. We must know our enemy and what our enemy wants to sweep under the rug.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
+1
.
What people, all people, or 98% of the population, are losing is THEIR right to free expression and association. Why should they be forced to play around the sewer just because a small handful of weirdos demand they do? THAT's the million dollar question.
bfl
Geeeeze. Am I the only one who’s had coffee this morning? Not much for words today?
bttt
I'm still digesting the article, along with another injection cup of coffee.
This is a very good, yet in a way depressing, article. There's so much more to marriage than sex, but it's been very hard for our side to explain.
Heterosexuals will continue to love even if sex is absent (stroke, disability, war injury, etc.), but if you remove sex from a homosexual situation, the relationship crumbles.
Whether this is generally true or not, I couldn't say. Nor do I know how such a generalization could be substantiated.
But it is not true in every instance. I know a couple of homosexual women in a "relationship" who have been together for years without having sex; one of them, in her mid-60's, remains the devoted caregiver of the other, a disabled Alzheimers sufferer in her late 70's.
If a male infant receives too much testosterone while in the uterus, the testosterone overdose damages the brain. (women in the work force, BTW, have a higher level of testosterone than non working mothers, which could explain the increase of autism we see in the world today).
The same thing applies to an overdose of estrogen, but it's very rare, because the mothering instinct is genetically imbebbed in the woman from the start.
Soooo, my question is this : what happens to a male homosexuals brain after years of ingesting another mans sperm? Would the increase of testosterone into his system damage his brain as well? Is that why the male homosexuals, when faced with opposition to their demands, snarl and spit as if they were experiencing the fight or flight reflex like that of an animal, or a brain so damaged only the animal instinct remains?
In short, what are the long term affects of a man swallowing another mans sperm, and why are no studies being done on this?
First of all, MOST people, normal or queer, are propablely not having sex at that age. By then, most are sexually retired.
Secondly, how do you know they're not having sex? Just because one is unaware of it doesn't mean the other isn't being hands on.
BTW: The female homosexuals aren't as aggressive and threatening to the human race as the males. Other than shouting their mouths off, they're at least, or mostly, disease free, and they're not as physically as aggressive or dangerous as the male homosexuals. Maybe because they're not overdosing, and their brains are left undamaged?
Your point, however, was that with homosexuals, when the sexual component is gone, the relationship is gone. My response was merely, "not in every case."
Then without the sex, these women are just best friends. There's no procreation involved to bring them together as one, so the only bond they have is companionship. That's not what marriage is all about.It's so much more than just living together.
IF they were young and one didn't provide the carpet munch, do you think the other would have stayed, or would she have found another to fill that need, because that's the only type of union these people can have. Kinky Sex. It doesn't go any further than that. The union ends there.
It seems to depend on the persons involved, which is why I am wary of generalizations unless there's some kind of legitimate longitudinal study. And even that tends to be iffy, since a self-selected survey pool doing retrospective self-reporting is the least reliable type of survey.
First of all, MOST people, normal or queer, are propablely not having sex at that age. By then, most are sexually retired.
And you might want to check out some of the stuff that goes on at the retirement communities in Florida. Orgies, prostitution, key parties, etc.
Is this from the article? I don’t remember reading that.
Great medical study suggestion.
Apparently, they get a lot of HPV.
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.