Posted on 02/20/2017 9:06:35 PM PST by TigerClaws
I am NOT “lying!”
YOU do not know the difference between “advocacy” and tacit acceptance!
I tacitly accept there are homosexual priests in my church. I do NOT advocate for them!
Therefore, either you are in over your head and should keep your mouth shut, or you are lying. There is no middle left to you.
Yes, you are lying about me in order to silence my opposition to man-boy sex.
Again, I have appreciated what Milo has said in defense of free speech.
I do *not*, however, appreciate his attempts to normalize sexual deviancy.
I think we at FR need to be careful not to align ourselves too closely with someone who brags about his homosexual prowess, who speaks positively about man-boy sex.
I’d be careful about putting homosexuals on pedestals.
THAT is a lie!
Claiming Milo has "defended" or "advocated" for "man-boy sex" is a blatant LIE!
I have made not put “homosexuals on a pedestal.”
However, I HAVE taken an extreme position with regard to smearing and maligning a champion of conservative thought for things he has not done.
Sorry, but an unreformed practicing homosexual cannot be trusted as a “champion of conservatism.” Ever. JMHO.
God, family, country.
The problem here is you can't see far enough past your own disdain for homosexuality, a disdain I happen to share, and your blatant distortion of Milo's public pronouncements.
You ARE misrepresenting him every bit as much as the media has misrepresented President Trump.
Jim, I can’t say as I blame you as my understanding of the Bible leaves very little in the way of middle ground with regard to the moral bankruptcy of homosexual behavior.
However, as my old dad used to say, “you can’t argue with performance,” and Milo has that in spades....
lmao... okay.
That literally makes no sense, whatsoever.
He claims the video was edited. Have you watched it?
He defends Christianity more boldly and more eloquently than many Christians can. Prayers for the LORD to comfort him and that Milo draws ever closer to saving faith. <3
Amen!
If you'll think about it, I didn't not say that anything I touched on had to be mandatory. It is however a good idea to shoot for some sort of a goal as a society. I attempted to mention a decent one to shoot for.
This "cornerstone of our society" is broadly recognized as impacting our nation for the good or bad.
Take a look at fatherless homes. Are fatherless homes generally as good as those with a father in them? Look at the inner cities and the communities where the family unit is stronger. Is there a difference?
Two wage earner families have been documented to do better financially, and as to their standard of living. It is also documented to provide a more balanced environment for raising kids.
Does this mean that there are no good homes without the father in them? Does it mean there are no good homes with out the mother in them? Of course not, but then that wasn't the focus.
The focus was on the best situation for a strong healthy family, having the most things going for it. A home being supportive of raising well rounded healthy children who will have had a very good example of how to live in a family unit. Then one day they can contribute to a healthy one as adults.
Tell me how addressing this undermines the nation, freedom, the Constitution, or the law? I superseded nothing in any of these concepts or documents.
I'm also curious what you mean by, "...your rigid form of Christianity..." A person now has to have a rigid form of Christianity to think a strong male figure, a healthy mother, and a decent home are best for children, and our future as a nation?
Please tell me where I stated you couldn't be an American or a Patriot if you didn't buy into this, but I am curious why you find so much fault with it. What do you have against a strong healthy family environment, as opposed to some of the others we see in our society at an alarmingly increasing rate?
If you think this belief is limited to rigid Christians, you haven't been taking a good look at our society and how the breakdown of the family unit is impacting it.
“He also said, without a hint of sarcasm:
“I am grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.””
Unlike Americans, people from Britain don’t always signal in an obvious manner by their tone of voice or inflexions that they are using irony when they are saying something. It may have been a tasteless and crass thing to say, but you don’t understand the concept of dry British wit or edgy humour if you think this means that he is actually condoning what this priest did to him.
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.