Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Still knee-deep in homophobia
The Arizona Republic ^ | Apr. 29, 2003 | O. Ricardo Pimentel

Posted on 04/29/2003 12:37:19 PM PDT by presidio9

Edited on 05/07/2004 5:21:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Let me translate into "bigotspeak" what Sen. Rick Santorum meant when he compared gays to bigamists, polygamists and practitioners of incest and adultery.

Translated: Hey, I place you in the same category as all those scummy people I just mentioned. Oh, and if you act on who you are, you're also a criminal.


(Excerpt) Read more at azcentral.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; dontbendover; gay; homosexual; homosexualagenda; mediabias; pimental; pimentel; santorum; sodomites
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 421-425 next last
Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: presidio9
Rick Santorum was correctly re-educating the apparently uneducated reporter regarding a stated position of a Supreme Court Justice on the legality of regulation of so-called "private" behaviour.
22 posted on 04/29/2003 12:51:13 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I'm SO glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
If 'phobia' means 'irrational fear' then I am not a homophobe. I do not fear the homosexual act, I am disgusted by it. And even those who do fear it can hardly be called 'irrational' because of that fear.

These heterophobes are the irrational ones.

23 posted on 04/29/2003 12:51:18 PM PDT by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billy_bob_bob
I don't know if you were replying to me or to the thread.

If I said, "If you allow (gay) consensual behavior based on privacy then you allow eatiing, sleaping, showering, or watching T.V." would people howl? Of cours not, because there is nothing immoral about any of those things.

Santorum picked four well recognized immoral acts. The homosexual community, which seems to not understand the concept of immorality, got mad to have their act lumped in with those others. Why? Show me one moral code practiced anywhere in the world that doesn't make homosexuality as immoral as bigamy, polygamy, adultery, and incest? There isn't one, which means that it was perfectly reasonable to lump homosexual behavior in with the other four.

The homosexuals are ticked off because it reminds everyone that homosexuality is immoral.

Shalom.

24 posted on 04/29/2003 12:51:29 PM PDT by ArGee (I did not come through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man... - Gandalf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
homophobic = fear of man

I fear no man, so I can't possibly be homophobic.

25 posted on 04/29/2003 12:52:16 PM PDT by ModernDayCato (The rich are the ones who MAKE the economy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: Emmylou
It's an interesting concept for a Republican -- that the government knows better than the individual whom a person should love and they're willing to enforce that using police.

This is not a thread about who you love. It's a thread about who you have sex with.

Shalom.

27 posted on 04/29/2003 12:53:45 PM PDT by ArGee (I did not come through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man... - Gandalf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
To me Rick Santorum makes all the sense in the world.

1. There’s a case in Texas involving the act of “gitchygoo” in the privacy of somebody’s bedroom.

2. Gitchygoo is illegal in Texas.

3. The people that did the Texas gitchygoo want the Supreme Court Of The United States to tell all the states that they can’t make laws that take away the right to do gitchygoo or anything else because it’s private. (nothing in the Constitution says anything about “all private things are legal”).

4. Rick Santotum’s statement was meant to ask the Supreme Court to leave states rights alone and to stick to the constitution. Otherwise we’re going to start down a slippery road towards who knows what.
28 posted on 04/29/2003 12:53:49 PM PDT by b-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
If being homophobic means...

It means someone is trying to say the reason you speak out against homosexuality is that you are afraid of it. In other words, they can't refute your position, so they assign one to you that they can knock down.

Have you ever met anyone that was afraid of a homosexual? Where do they come up with this stupidity. Homophobe. Like, I have a phobia. Give me a break.

29 posted on 04/29/2003 12:55:01 PM PDT by BJungNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
NOW HEAR THIS, Mr. Pimento:

Homosexuality is WORSE than bigamy or adultery. All are immoral. But homosexuality is also sick and unnatural.
30 posted on 04/29/2003 12:56:14 PM PDT by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: Emmylou
Emmylou, you are missing the point. This is about liberals trying to get voters riled up with a hot-button issue. I for one am sick of the Republican Party continually backing down to the gay rights lobby which never votes Republican anyway.
32 posted on 04/29/2003 12:57:51 PM PDT by presidio9 (Homophobic And Proud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; .45MAN; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; Antoninus; aposiopetic; ...
That's because...many Republicans in and outside the Senate - and more than a few Democrats - agree with everything Santorum said.

Thank God!

Democrats will get some initial mileage out of this...but it will not have the legs for any long-haul criticism.

Because most Americans are still repulsed by homosexuality.

Mankind has spent several millenia developing effective and sanitary methods of disposing human waste.

Mankind knows that human waste is the source of deadly diseases.

Mankind knows that highly promiscuous sexual behavior of any kind brings with it high morbidity and mortality.

Male homosexual behavior is essentially desirous of methods to literally and figuratively swim upstream to the sources of that human waste, with as many different partners as humanly possible.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is deadly and definitely decreases the homosexual's life expectancy, and the visceral repulsion it engenders is a natural, wholesome, and common sense response.

Unfortunately, homophobia continues to enjoy a disturbing degree of public acceptance.

Translation: some Americans still enjoy a certain degree of common sense, and have not bought into the homo agenda propaganda.

Please, spare me the scripture readings. I know many take refuge in religion for their beliefs about gays. Religions evolve, however. We're not quite there on this issue, which is part of the reason Santorum will likely hold on to his leadership spot.

The moment we are there will be the moment this Republic fails. If it has not already.

You see, when it comes to gays, we are, in many respects, still knee-deep in the dark ages.

Of course, in many respects, the "dark ages" were much more enlightened than this idiot.

33 posted on 04/29/2003 12:58:57 PM PDT by Polycarp ("He who denies the existence of God, has some reason for wishing that God did not exist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Emmylou
You're right. I say let the homos do whatever they want to each other in their homes. It's not my problem. In fact, it leaves more women available for me. Everybody wins.
34 posted on 04/29/2003 12:59:39 PM PDT by LanPB01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Rick should have done in the first place whatever he might have done if he could have done it all again, which I think he would have done, which goes to show that the past is not perfect.
35 posted on 04/29/2003 1:00:05 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
Ebonics Translator

Copy the article and paste it. I would post what comes back but it would probably be deleted.

36 posted on 04/29/2003 1:01:10 PM PDT by renosathug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
The Wonderful New Mental Illness: Homophobia

Some gays thought the new line of demarcation and the disease it created — homophobia — was wonderful. It was touted by some as a major victory for gay liberation. The National Gay Rights Task Force, in the US, called homophobia “a flawed personality trait” which “mental health professionals have identified.” At a conference sponsored by gay groups, one speaker announced: “Homophobia is the problem, not homosexuality. Homophobia is the pathology, not homosexuality.”

Now, by making bigotry a "mental illness," one thereby removes the bigot from the realm of morality and places him in the medical realm instead. This reclassification of bigotry establishes a foundation for the exoneration of the bigot. Such a theory of bigotry would, for example, serve well the interests of past perpetrators of apartheid. They could defend their crimes by claiming “diminished mental capacity” due to “the disease of negrophobia.” Instead of a Truth Commission we could create a commission of psychiatrists to treat the poor victims of this new disease.

This is virtually what happened in the case of Dan White, the assassin of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and gay city Supervisor Harvey Milk. White couldn’t be inflicted with the disease of homophobia and be responsible for his crime at the same time. By medicalizing White’s actions the court was saying that the assassinations were actually a symptom of his disease. The trial of White ended with him being found to suffer from “diminished capacity” and he received a slap-on-the-wrist sentence. The city’s gay population was shocked; but large segments of their own leadership had established the foundation on which this exoneration was based by accepting the existence of a phony disease called “homophobia”.

37 posted on 04/29/2003 1:01:21 PM PDT by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
Ebonics

If da Supreme Court says dat ya gots da right ta consensual sex within yo' home, then ya gots da right ta bigamy, ya gots da right ta polygamy, ya gots da right ta incest, ya gots da right ta adultery. You gots da right ta anythin'. Does dat undermine da fabric o' our society? I would argue yeea , it do. sho 'nuff!

38 posted on 04/29/2003 1:01:27 PM PDT by JoshGray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
His religion has sanctions against homosexuality. What right does anyone have to call him a bigot?
39 posted on 04/29/2003 1:01:52 PM PDT by ladylib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LanPB01
I say let the homos do whatever they want to each other in their homes.

If only that was all there was to it.

They also want the ability to marry and adopt/raise kids.

40 posted on 04/29/2003 1:02:06 PM PDT by martin_fierro (Mr. Avuncular)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 421-425 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson