Gay Woman Sues Va. to Allow Adoption

The Washington (Com)Post ^ | December 6, 2001 | Brooke A. Masters

[lavaroise]

Did your wife being female have nothing to do with your decision to marry her?

No, at the time I was a real, I mean a R E A L liberal. I could have married a man for all I cared, but that is not the angle of the homo agenda. It is not about liberalism, it is about sexual preferences, which I did not have.

Because of the homo movement and other liberal tendencies promote facist ideals, I veered way to the right and agreed that indeed, man was meant for woman, because of mandates that are beyond anyone's preference or eccentric ideology.

Thank G_d fate offered me a woman.

[Dimensio]

>Did your wife being female have nothing to do with your decision to marry her?

No, at the time I was a real, I mean a R E A L liberal. I could have married a man for all I cared, but that is not the angle of the homo agenda. It is not about liberalism, it is about sexual preferences, which I did not have.

If you are not sexually attracted to men, how could you have married one?

Love and marriage should be a lot more than just about sexual attraction -- but there really should be some element of that in a romantic relationship IMO.

[Jaxter]

"Ah, but the homosexuals aren't just "minding their business." They have viciously attacked the Boy Scouts of America and now the Salvation Army."

Some homosexuals attacked the boyscouts.
Some Jews murdered Jesus. Do you hate all Jews too?
Look, I dislike left-wing, agenda pushing homosexuals as much as anybody. I just think gays that mind their own business and don't bother anybody else should be left in peace. Do you disagree?

[FormerLib]

And yet you seem to know all about Greg Louganis.

That comes from watching too much TV (something that I've since given up on). Yeah, I used to admire Greg a little. He once spoke about how he'd quit smoking after a teenaged fan told him that he'd started smoking to be more like Greg. Louganis was appalled that his foul habit was being passed on to innocent teens so he quit. I thought that showed strength of character.

Then he goes and admits that he's a sexual pervert who's partner regularly abused him (hope the teens don't emulate that one!). Then he admits that he didn't tell the doctor who stitched up his bleeding head that he was HIV postive. And this was before AIDS precautions were routine and the doc wasn't wearing any gloves!

Obviously, any character that he possessed was quite shallow.

[Jaxter]

"Careful, that's widely known as a tactic used by the pro-homo cheerleaders here on Free Republic. They often miss the point that, by using homosexuality as a smear, they are admitting that there is just something wrong with homosexuality."

Bull$hit. This idiot called me gay first. My wife, kids and grandkids would get a real kick out of that.

[lavaroise]

Your being "ex-bi" does a lot to explain your anger and hostility.

I don't need your personal judgment on my person a$$ hole. So fck u too.

[FormerLib]

Why do you people support these disgusting things?

We don't but some folks insist that the First Amendment protects them. To decent folks, it's all just varying degrees of perversion, none of which are supportable.

[FormerLib]

This idiot called me gay first.

Then tell him he's an idiot. But using the "I know you are but what am I" ploy is beneath you.

[FormerLib]

Don't let the Devil drag you down! That's why he's here, after all.

[lavaroise]

Love and marriage should be a lot more than just about sexual attraction -- but there really should be some element of that in a romantic relationship IMO.

No wonder, it does help when a penis meets a vagina. Duh!

[Jaxter]

I really believe that the rabidly, anti-gay, kill-the-fag types are latent homosexuals. It was no ploy.

[lavaroise]

He started the personal insult or personal love, that I do not need from sick a$$es, damn it. After all, I ain't the pervert looking to adopt kids for my own personal vindication (at the very least), so why judge me, especialy on FR.

[JCG]

 I just think gays that mind their own business and don't bother anybody else should be left in peace. Do you disagree?

No I don't disagree, except so few of them do mind their own business and don't bother the rest of us..  While they may not be out front and "in your face" like the Larry Kramers and Rosie O'Donnells you can rest assured that their money and support go to destructive organizations like the ALCU, Lambda Legal Defense Fund, GLAAD, GLSEN, PFLAG, etc. (ad nauseum).  Their votes go to homosexuals like Barney Franks and enablers like Lynn Woolsey, Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.

To my knowlege nobody has ever attacked either the Boy Scouts or the Salvation Army -- except homosexuals and atheists.  When they call off the warfare, I might be more inclined to give 'em a pass.

America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (50 minute video)

[Dimensio]

>Love and marriage should be a lot more than just about sexual attraction -- but there really should be some element of that in a romantic relationship IMO.

No wonder, it does help when a penis meets a vagina. Duh!

I'm not sure I follow this. Are you saying that a penis meeting a vagina is a required element for love (speaking of eros and not agape, of course)?

Anyway it strikes me as something of a non-sequitur. I was wondering, you said that when you were a liberal you could have married a man for all you cared -- were you sexually attracted to men at the time (in addition to women, presumably)?

[Dimensio]

No I don't disagree, except so few of them do mind their own business and don't bother the rest of us.. While they may not be out front and "in your face" like the Larry Kramers and Rosie O'Donnells you can rest assured that their money and support go to destructive organizations like the ALCU, Lambda Legal Defense Fund, GLAAD, GLSEN, PFLAG, etc. (ad nauseum). Their votes go to homosexuals like Barney Franks and enablers like Lynn Woolsey, Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.

Here's a question I ask of anyone who makes such a claim. How can you know that the homosexuals who are "in your face" are in the majority -- how would you know what percentage isn't "in your face" when they aren't "in your face" and aren't making the news?

To my knowlege nobody has ever attacked either the Boy Scouts or the Salvation Army -- except homosexuals and atheists. When they call off the warfare, I might be more inclined to give 'em a pass.

I don't have a problem with a private charity like SA making their own rules. I do have a problem with the BSA being allowed to discriminate on a religious basis while still recieving government funding and preferential treatment. They argued to the USSC that they were a "private religious group" -- I believe that they should be treated as such, and not given exclusive deals on public park leases or special access to public schools (and by that I mean access when other "private" groups are not allowed -- schools that allow any private organization to meet should not be allowed to exclude the BSA).

[JCG]

I'm not sure how or why the "gay agenda" opponents came to know so much about gay sex -- their knowledge surpassing that of every homosexual I've met -- but they sure seem to have every creative position memorized.

The "how" is simple -- the Web is such a vast research tool that just about any information one would want to possess is available.  As to the "why," maybe it occurs when we opponents of the gay agenda encounter homosexuals or their enablers and have to dislodge beautiful little lies with big ugly facts.

Here's a link to one of those research locations -- from the first page of my Google search -- that tells everything I never wanted to know about "gay" sex.  Try the description for "felch" as a starting place.

Everything you wanted to know about homosexual sex but were too disgusted to ask...
 

America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (50 minute video)