MORE HOMOSEXUAL POLITICIANS REVEAL NEW FACE OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY

News Release from Campaign for California Families ^ | December 3, 2002 | Campaign for California Families

[mil-vet]

Bigotry? Hmmmm. As a matter of fact, if the B-F'rs kept their bedroom habits to themselves instead of attempting to shove it up all non-fag a$$es (a little B-F'r humor there - VERY little), I don't think there would be a problem.

I don't tell anyone else how to live, and I resent it when someone else tries to tell ME how to live. Note to B-F'rs: Keep your personal life personal (as in "private"), stop your poorly concealed proselyting through the public education system and by taking over the state capitols of nearly every state in the union, and "bigotry" would cease.

It's the B-F'rs, by definition, who are "backward" (more bad B-F'r humor), and who hate all the rest of the population which is NOT ignorant, as shown by the fact that they don't need deviant bedroom habits to define themselves!

[Darksheare]

"They should be scorned for their foolish politics, not for their taste in bed."

Unfortunately, the two are linked.
Their politics and their choice of "partners" often are inseperable.

[Darksheare]

My old unit had this to say about B-F-r's:
"We've been in this trench together for seven weeks. Does that mean we're married by commonlaw? I wanna hold your hand."

Usually said with a dead-pan face and followed up with :
"That wouldn't happen to be bordering Don't ask don't tell, now? Would it?"
Clinton, what a farce.

[BikerNYC]

Their politics and their choice of "partners" often are inseperable.

Yeah, but look at Lindsey Graham.

[headsonpikes]

"Unfortunately, the two are linked."

True, but not in a necessary way.

Plenty of straight people hold perfectly idiotic and communistic ideas about all sorts of things that are matters of public policy.

It's not as if the gays are the only folks with dangerous and moronic views.

They can be defeated on public, political grounds, and that's the way to do it.

IMHO.

[onedoug]

Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality

[joesnuffy]

They can always come over and share a fire in the Ole Log Cabin

[Darksheare]

Yes, but the gays have their lifestyle an dtheir poitics linked so darn badly.
And they go to such ridiculous limits to try and get approval of their lifestyle and have it accepted.
And their form of acceptance means to be able to cram their lifestyle down everyone's throat, recruit children, and be an elevated protected political class.

I'm agreeing with you on the politics here. I'm just not sure it CAN be 'unlinked' due to the behaviors shown.

[Darksheare]

Janet Reno. Hillary Rodhim Clinton.

[Mat_Helm]

HIV will eventually get all the sodomites, they can't help themselves with no morals or common sense. Sex is between a man and a woman and all this crap about condems should be described as safe sodomy by the deviants. Bwwaaa haaaha haa.

[BikerNYC]

Fascinating history.

To a world which divided human sexuality between penetrator and penetrated, Judaism said, “You are wrong — sexuality is to be divided between male and female.” To a world which saw women as baby producers unworthy of romantic and sexual attention, Judaism said “You are wrong — women must be the sole focus of men's erotic love.”

Why?, someone might ask.

Unless the sex drive is appropriately harnessed (not squelched — which leads to its own destructive consequences), higher religion could not have developed.

As is typical, religious and moral pronouncements were made by religious leaders to further their own power. “Let’s harness sex so religion can develop. In that way, people will have to come to us to know what they can and cannot do.”

Moreover, the Bible lists homosexuality together with child sacrifice among the “abominations” practiced by the peoples living in the land about to be conquered by the Jews. The two are certainly not morally equatable, but they both characterized a morally primitive world that Judaism set out to destroy.

The pronouncements of the holy men also justified military incursions into foreign lands so as to increase their power.

[FormerLib]

The more this happens, the more people will be forced to leave the Democrat Party because they will not be a partner to this sort of perversion. So long as we do not get fooled by the nonsense espoused by the "Log Cabin Republicans", all of those votes will become ours.

[ItsJeff]

... if the B-F'rs kept their bedroom habits to themselves instead of attempting to shove it up all non-fag a$$es (a little B-F'r humor there - VERY little)

Uh, let's just keep remarks like that limited to Free Republic, okay? That's all we need is to have you speaking your piece on the evening news. Folks would form a line to support gay rights.

[Darksheare]

I served in the Military. Those comments are curtesy of Clinton's "Don't ask Don't tell." policy which made gays join the military in droves thinking it was an open all you can eat meat market.
They figured they were protected and could get away with making passes at everyone.
NOT a wise and informed decision on their part.

[onedoug]

The pronouncements of the holy men also justified military incursions into foreign lands so as to increase their power."

And gave rise to Western civilization, yes.

[BikerNYC]

That's fine. Our history is our history. But to think that the moral pronouncements offered in the article are somehow justified because of a god and not because of a desire for power is ridiculous.

[onedoug]

Not "a" god. The God.

[BikerNYC]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what the followers of the Babylonian God Ishtar said, too.

[onedoug]

Ethical Monotheism

[ItsJeff]

They figured they were protected and could get away with making passes at everyone. NOT a wise and informed decision on their part.

Especially when you consider that the military is booting them out at historic levels. I've never been in the military, but assumed that gays wanted to enlist because of the benefits or as an act of patriotism. But I'll defer to your first-hand observations that gays join up for the nooky.

I get antsy when I see psycho posts like some made here. It's my observation that straight people don't support "gay rights" in order to further the gay agenda. They do it as a sympathetic response to a particularly horrific deed done to gay people. Wyoming now protects gays as a class because of what happened to Matt Sheppard. Even Alabama toyed with the idea (but dropped it) of extending civil protections to gays after a gay man was set on fire.

Did you know that there were six "anti-gay" proposals in the U.S. last month, and that five were defeated? My gut tells me that this is because the "anti-gay" side of the debate was dominated by shrew harpies who breathlessly blurt out "The homosexuals want your children!" an approach that attracts no one to the cause. We could "hearts and minds" the middle with calm, reasoned, intelligent arguments, I think.