Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Last Dakotan

I don’t disagree with anything he said and that quite in particular I don’t have any issue with at all. There’s another quote though where he disparaged homosexual activity with, to say the least, salty language. It can’t be repeated in the Religion Forum.

That is what I was referring to in my previous post. There’s charity and then there’s just being crude. The quote I’m talking about is both; I’m just saying the crudity can be eliminated. A graphic description of the act is not needed when condemning it.


19 posted on 04/07/2014 7:34:44 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: FourtySeven
A graphic description of the act is not needed when condemning it.

I disagree.

By allowing the Left to sugar-coat it with euphemisms such as "marriage equality", and "gay marriage" and "love", we enable the brainwashing of the common folk, who know in their hearts that a man masturbating inside another man's $4!7hole is not a marital act.

35 posted on 04/07/2014 11:46:28 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Obamacare: You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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