Posted on 08/12/2011 8:04:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As for same-sex marriage, since marriage isn't a basic human right, it's not something that homosexuals can claim for themselves. There is no RIGHT to marriage; there are all kinds of rules attached to it, based on concepts adopted by civilizations throughout history.
make that inference to his face and you'd become one with the flooring
Invariably, some flamboyant zealot or bible thumper will try and persuade people to get fired up over their point of view. America's supposed to be the land of live and let live, but try saying that to those folks and see what happens. Both sides invariably get more agitated and aggressive, because minding your own business and living quietly and privately in your own beliefs just isn't enough for a lot of people.
The inability to mind our own business is the root of most of America's problems, financial and social.
I agree. Homosexuality by its very definition is a behavior. We need to control the debate by controlling the language.
Homosexual marriage is NOT a civil right, and by legalizing homosexual marriage the state would be legislating that children be intentionally either a mother or a father.
Correction. . . Intentionally DENIED either a mother or a father.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
There are some interesting reactions on this thread.
Viewing the video was of some help in analyzing West’s comments.
Being homosexual is not against the law.
In essence, West was asked if he believes those who are not violating the law should “change” a significant aspect of their character. (Sex crimes was not in issue in the context of this exchange, but the trap was set with the reporter’s use of the ambiguous word “behavior”.)
That is not a tough question for a black Ameican who grew up in Atlanta.
West’s response was consistent with what all of us should want from a conservative politician: stay out of our lives unless we are doing something illegal or we invite you in.
Heh, like some of the women at Smith College in Northhampton MA. They're LUGs; Lesbians Until Graduation.
Since he got to congress this guy has crapped on the people who put him there,No money or Vote here.
Their whole “movement” is based on this being something they are born with, like a genetic defect, but it has been shown time and again that much of the behavior is the result of circumstances around them (a weird family, some event such as being molested as a child, etc.) and can be changed.
Now Now Don't try to bring common-sense and Comprehension into the discussion the natives are busy KNEE-JERKING!
He lives in a state that a super majority passed a constitutional amendment.
What is his position or is he just kow towing for some group? who are his staffers to allow him to duck the marriage issue?
Dear LTC West,
This is not about choosing between chocolate chip and vanilla.
This is about choosing between chocolate chip and cyanide.
There’s enough non-reflectiveness going around without your falling into that same cesspool. Gays died anywhere from 2 decades sooner than do non-gays. They are hugely promiscuous reaping for their trouble a host of blood-borne and other pathogens to numerous to list here.
Their choice kills them.
Those who care about them tell them to stop.
Those who hate them tell them to keep doing it.
Those who haven’t thought deeply compare it to vanilla ice cream.
Nicely Put,He is from My district and we are continually shocked by these antics,West should NOT get comfortable in DC,The Bonehead easily turned him and that added to the dismay.
So I must disagree with you. I think West has played right into the hands of the perv-activists who portray homosexual behavior as a "human rights issue" (for instance, the gay-advocacy group that calls itself, with suave simplicity, HRC: the "Human Rights Campaign") --- sans definition.
It's not just the gay issue. With any issue you name, we find ourselves in a rhetorical funland in which anything you can assert as a "wanna" turns automatically into a "right."
You name it: anything you want is a right, based on the First and Greatest Commandment, the Law of Wanna.
In this rhetorical context--- here and now--- "human rights" don't center on a right to live secure from murder, assault, fines, imprisonment, confiscation of property or loss of livelihood as retaliation for some harmless private jiggery-pokery. "Human rights" is a phrase twisted to mean "My power to demand that society affirm and subsidize anything I wanna do."
And if West doesn't understand that, he ought to maintain a wise silence until he masters the vector analysis of how "Rights Talk" spins in public.
Ice cream is not condemned by God. Nor does it transmit Aids. Nor does it disrupt propagation of our species.
It’s a pity. Sometimes I believe we just live to say, “Well, that does it, he’s over for me, kick him down the steps.” It’s usually about a few words often said on the fly (half the time in response to a “when did you stop beating your wife” type of trick question), and virtually always taken out of context or twisted by their reporter or even hearer.
Even if I didn’t like West, I’d think some of these outraged responses here are plain silly.
Christians who feel inclined to homosexuality should, according to the Bible, avoid that behavior. Christians who feel drawn toward adultery should similarly avoid that behavior. As for non-Christians, that’s up to them and their beliefs, and it’s not my place to decide their actions for them . . . however, it’s gross regardless of their faith or lack thereof, and I don’t want to be exposed to any form of sexual immorality. I don’t understand why this has become the center of modern political dialogue - we’re talking about 2% of the population here, a mentally disturbed fringe.
Comments like this speak volumes. It shows that the Gaystapo is getting to him behind the scenes. And I don’t want a politician whose fundamental principles can be “gotten to.”
A good, solid test for conservatism: Imagine a candidate making the statement in question 15 or 25 years ago. How would his response have been view then?
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.