Posted on 05/29/2003 11:42:24 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
You've stated this as if someone wants to create an entirely homosexual society, which of course could not exist. But that's not at all what we're talking about and you know that. But to the extent that you're trying to misrepresent the facts simply to buttress an unsupportable premise, you're simply being outright dishonest.
We're talking about a pluralistic society in which the 2 to 5 percent of the population that is homosexual is allowed to live in peaceful coexistance with the rest of society. Their numbers are insignificant and have no impact on your life, my life, or the continuation or demise of our society. To argue otherwise is sheer unbridled demogoguery.
Please don't insult my intelligence and the rest of FR's intelligence by arguing some stupid hypothetical that does not, has not, and will never exist in the real world.
Only in theory do you begin to make any sense. Sadly, the theory is silly and so is your reasoning.
I didn't accuse you of having ever advocated for hate crimes legislation. What I want to know is whether you agree or disagree with the following statement:
The "hate crimes" legislation that many in the homosexual community are pushing for is completely unnecessary.
You can answer your own question... How many days, weeks or months are you going to continue your obfuscation?
How about telling us how providing you with the context of each summary is somehow dishonest?
I've given you plenty of opportunities to provide evidence to support your claim the summary is biased but you won't even try. Hey, I've even tried to support your claim but the information just doesn't exist. There is simply nothing I can find to support your position. And you, you don't even try and then you call my attempts to get you to answer an honest question, dishonest. Sheesh.
I appears you realize this and will do and say anything to avoid admitting your assessment of the summary was wrong. Completely wrong. And that's what is so bothersome. You don't seem want to admit a gay agenda exists despite the overwhelming evidence to the contray.
In that post I asked you if I should continue posting the context of the additional summaries and you said Please do but you never provided me with a number. I've asked, using your own words, which of the summaries are highly perjorative but you refuse to provide a number.
Yawn, yawn, yawn. You're the biggest bore on FR. You demand answers but refuse to answer any yourself. You hypocrite.
It's pitiful that you won't even answer the simple question in post 225.
I can't imagine you missed all the hints I've dropped, but if you really did, besides your poor comparison, my answer is very similar to Argee's answer, which is the answer you should have for yourself if you caught any hints. You'll probably act like you can't understand that answer.
1) Was that an intentional pun?
2) How is Dr. Laura a "screeching shrew and a hypocrite?"
Yet you don't provide a single example of how any one of us have persecuted gays. Which you can't do, and you won't do, because to you the ends justify the means. You'll do whatever it takes to push the gay agenda
You state on your FR homepage that you "don't approve of homosexuality."
That seems to be a pretty broad statement. Which specific aspects of homosexuality do you disapprove of? Which specific aspects do you approve of? You do know that by not approving of (embracing) all aspects of homosexuality, you are considered a "hater" and a "homophobe" by a signifcant portion of the homosexual community, right?
You're the lowest of the low.
I must admit it was a little long and convoluted. I won't provide any excuses.
Now to answer your question again which should remove any issues you have with answering mine:
Would you give an open-minded and reasoned consideration to an article titled "The Christian Agenda for America" by the American Athiest Organization?
Of course I undestand what you're trying to get at, but it falls far short. Why? Because I've provided you with the context behind the first of 62 summaries regarding After the Ball, and that context demonstrated the summary was accurate. For some reason you refuse to admit this fact and you refuse to provide a number to verify a second summary. That speaks volumes about your bias.
I've performed internet searches on the book and cannot find a single statement to support your position. Every single reference to the book supports my position. One would think if the book was incorrectly summarized there would be somebody screaming, somewhere. But, no, that isn't happening. So there is nothing to support your statement other than your feelings the summary is biased.
I wouldn't be surprised if a book similarly entitled The Christian Agenda for America does indeed exist, perhaps even written by an atheist or atheistic organization.
Would I give an open-minded consideration of the book? Perhaps. How do I know I'm right in what I believe? If I really wanted to know why I believe what I believe; I'd make sure of what I do believe. And in my endeavors I wouldn't purchase and read everything out there, but enough to make an informed decision. Of course if the book was crap as ArGee answered, I'd make sure everybody knew it. Yet not a single mention of that in any internet searches.
Now for some reason you appear to deny the existence of the gay agenda. As I see it, you have been desensitized and manipulated into your current thoughts on the gay agenda, and you don't seem to care that you're being used to further the gay agenda. You're too intelligent to fall for this stuff so I have to wonder what it is you're doing in furthering the gay agenda.
I can only speculate.
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.