Posted on 01/22/2005 10:37:46 AM PST by Pikamax
Ya' know, I've often wondered if part of a homosexual's problem is that he/she is sort of stuck, sexually and emotionally, in that juvenile phase of growing up where "playing doctor" with friends of the same sex is considered natural.
RE: "These sort of "folks" are VERY rare (I don't know anybody like this and I don't want to) but it does send chills up my spine that you would knowingly work alongside a person who would murder a gay at the slightest provocation."
Oh, I'm not sure why you think that that kind of person is so rare. Sad to say, but I've known several people in my past who talked this very way about homosexuals, mostly when I was in High School. You know the kind, the "AIDS kills F*** dead" crowd. Truly horrendous people that they are, most are also so cowardly that they'd never even think of taking the drastic, violent measures against gays that they claim to believe in.
I've never allowed one of these types to keeps my aquaintance for long, and I angrily cursed one of these moronic bigots out in Senior class (man, but it was worth the trip to after-school detention; just like the time I stood up for the rights of the unborn in a class hostile to pro-life ideas-- we are all activists in our own little ways, my friend).
Where can we find the curriculum that goes with the video? (If you already answered this question, I apologize for re-asking, but I haven't read this whole thread yet. By the length of it, it might take a while!)
Your post #25 is one of the saddest things I've ever read. No child should have to endure sexual abuse, whether for only a moment, or repeatedly for years. This is so sad. It is interesting that shame is such a natural response to having been used sexually. A child doesn't need to be informed that sexual abuse is creepy and wrong; they know it instictively.
Hopefully you read #214 too, rather than assuming a prejudice that is itself disgusting, disheartening, and naive.
Dr. James Dobson, the psychologist, founder of Focus On the Family, and educator based in Colorado Springs, owns cell phone towers in Oklahoma???????
Any idea on why he was banned? I came into this thread late but he seemed to be having a civil discussion with several about homosexuality and whether there is a link to sexual abuse.
I read the entire thread, k2.
I don't automatically attach - or dismiss - significance to someone's views or opinions strictly because they may or may not adhere to a certain set of religious beliefs, if any. I like to think I judge the merits of the argument on the argument itself.
What concerns me is that I see far too many posts on FR where one poster or a another states he/she is a Christian as though that somehow gives his/her argument more leverage or power than the posts proffered by FReepers who may not be (or do not state) their Christianity or faith in any religion. It's nonsense.
As long as they like the messenger, the message can be anything. Yes, it's going to 61,000 schools across the nation.
Of course, they haven't published a list. No matter where I've looked, all I see is a number.
But I don't wonder why they're withholding the names of schools.
That's a great thread. Thanks for posting link.
Beyond being a great post, very LOGICAL analysis.
It is absolutely rational not to want to spend one's money at a business that promotes something that one is against.
You are nuts.
Using drugs is against the law and harmful to the child.
Being selective about TV is NOT.
I can't take credit for it, I got it from a post of Scripter's! I saved it for when people trot out those "bonobos are homos so it much be normal and natural" arguments.
He was slavishly promoting the homosexual agenda in the usual troll manner; ignoring rational arguments, innuendo, slamming the messenger, straw man arguments, etc. Transparently. Also, very likely a "recidivist".
Bringing out that kind of argument is absurd. Dogs pee on fire hydrants; should we as well?
Also.....that kind of argument is the same as saying: "let's bring our behavior and expectations down to the lowest common denominator."
Again, no disagreement. Where we would disagree on that is probably in the effectiveness of such a personal boycott.
However, that was not the discussion. It was not a "business that promotes something...", it was "something someone else liked". To use THAT as a basis for a boycott is ridiculous.
You used the example of the car company marketing to gays. I was responding to that.
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.