Posted on 04/30/2013 5:33:37 PM PDT by markomalley
If homosexuality is not perversion, then what is? Show me some intellectual strength.
These small Freudian slips are not meant to be noticed, but rather are the "I told you so"
from my own lips. Do not discount the nature of the politician who talks
from both sides of their mouth. Deception is the ultimate game of chance they want to win.
“You don’t read very well, I said “explain your support for the homosexual agenda.”.”
What the heck are you talking about ?
“Why do you want homosexuals adopting children?”
Read previous posts... I don’t
“You are a social liberal, meaning that you are not a conservative or as your post reveals, you disparage conservatism, just like a good liberal, homosexual aqenda supporting fellow would.”
Not true - every life deserves the best opportunities it can get. And we as a society need to help those that are young, grow to be personally responsible for themselves and participating citizens of the US. There is a broad line between homosexual & socialist agendas and fanatical religious zealots. On that line you will find most Americans, the common thread is that those on the line believe that a human life comes first no matter what stage or condition. Those outside the line believe that their morals trump life - those people are pro-abortion, and on the other side those on the other side want to burn people at the stake (metaphorically).
But chances are you didn’t read that - just like you didn’t read anything else..... but I gotta try.
“All right-minded persons disagree.”
not all....
“Other than GFY I really don’t know what else to say to this guy.”
Then go away... (I think I said that)
You don’t have an argument.
“If homosexuality is not perversion, then what is? Show me some intellectual strength.”
How about two people of same sex that live together (civil union) but do not engage in sex ?
your turn....
Who is a "religious zealot"? Uh, is that what you mean by "intellectual strength"? Because, I will confess I am not following you much.
Right..... it isn’t your defense of homosexual adoption that is causing all the discussion, it is because you are against it?
You are an old liberal that promotes this left wing social liberalism frequently on this social conservative site.
You did not answer the question. I wonder why....
“If homosexuality is not perversion, then what is? “
By the way I don’t think I need to answer this for you... no need to feed your imagination.
But suffice it to say that there are lots kinds of sexual perversions and that homosexual acts are but one.
Are they asking to teach those other perversions in schools?
Sure I do. Homosexual parents are detrimental to child development, safety and well being compared to hetero parents of man and woman. Religiously, scientifically, evolutionary, morally and demonstrably.
Which is why humanity evolved from caves as it did with homosexuality as the aberration, not the norm.
Next asinine assertion please?
“You are an old liberal that promotes this left wing social liberalism frequently on this social conservative site.”
Oh for cryin out loud Ansel.. read - I’m not retyping out my points over an over.
So you are trying to refute what YOU said in post 53? Which way is it?
“Who is a “religious zealot”? Uh, is that what you mean by “intellectual strength”? Because, I will confess I am not following you much.”
Do you want me to call people names ?
I’m thinking you are arguing with me not the points in the article.
“So you are trying to refute what YOU said in post 53? Which way is it?”
I think I typed this... to answer your question
But suffice it to say that there are lots kinds of sexual perversions and that homosexual acts are but one.
“Are they asking to teach those other perversions in schools?
“
What ?!
We’re talking Ryan’s point - but no don’t teach perversion in school
I’m not convinced..... but then again I don’t subscribe to the fact that all homos are raging perverts.
said mike_9958
Do you feel homosexuals should be given preference to adopt over hetro people into BDSM? Or foot fetishists? Or people into watersports?
If not, why?
“So you are trying to refute what YOU said in post 53? Which way is it?”
How about two people of same sex that live together (civil union) but do not engage in sex ?
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.