Posted on 03/24/2002 7:10:59 PM PST by Hillary'sMoralVoid
The choice is yours entirely. Everyone has free will.
I agee with you that sodimites should be watched because the politily incorrect truth is that they are more likely to be child molisters. That said I could care less what they do to each other in the privicy of their own homes, unless it involves children or gerbils.
The main thing is to keep the governments nose out of peoples business. The government should not tell the Boy Scouts who they must have as leaders. Public schools should be done away with so parents could be free to send their children to schools that choose not to hire sodimites. Oh that brings up another thing the government should not do; tell privite business who to hire.
Obesity costs us billions a year in health cost. Fat people die horrible deaths. Diabetes and heart disease can cause years of pain and suffering. Amputation of feet, extreme shortness of breath, chest pains are common. The families must slow down their activities to take care of the obesity problem in its midst.
I await your proposal showing that you care for these people who have succumbed to gluttony, evil and temptation.
What? The libs just make up their own definition of homophobic and you make one up too? Websters defines phobic as "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation". But that not the way people here are talking about homophobic, they just don't want them around. I haven't seen one post that fits with the definition of "phobic" here. "Afraid of your own sexuality?" Take that to Webster will you? It doesn't flush here.
Carry on, the rest of you. You're doing a GREAT job!!!!
You have other questions to answer about your fanatical positions, so I'll close this by saying you have a short and convenient memory about your own position.
Oh one more, please list the sex acts that you consider to be "degrading" between heterosexual couples. And your response would be jail or just condemnation?
"...For elsewhere in the public square, the defense of adult-child sex—more accurately, man-boy sex—is now out in the open. Moreover, it is on parade in a number of places—therapeutic, literary, and academic circles; mainstream publishing houses and journals and magazines and bookstores—where the mere appearance of such ideas would until recently have been not only unthinkable, but in many cases, subject to prosecution...
...Plainly, as the record even then showed, a surprising number of voices were willing to rise up on behalf of what advocates refer to as "man-boy love," or what most people call sexual abuse..."
For one thing, no sustained public challenges have arisen over other primal taboos. Even more telling, if nihilism and nihilism alone were the explanation for public attempts to legitimize sex with boy children, then we would expect the appearance of related attempts to legitimize sex with girl children; and these we manifestly do not see. Nobody, but nobody, has been allowed to make the case for girl pedophilia with the backing of any reputable institution. Publishing houses are not putting out acclaimed anthologies and works of fiction that include excerpts of men having sex with young girls. Psychologists and psychiatrists are not competing with each other to publish studies demonstrating that the sexual abuse of girls is inconsequential; or, indeed, that it ought not even be defined as "abuse."
Two examples from the last few weeks will suffice to show the double standard here. In the November 12 New York Times Book Review, a writer found it unremarkable to observe of his subject, biographer Gavin Lambert, that when "Lambert was a schoolboy of 11, a teacher initiated him [into homosexuality], and he 'felt no shame or fear, only gratitude.'" It is unimaginable that New York Times editors would allow a reviewer to describe an 11-year-old girl being sexually "initiated" by any adult (in that case, "initiation" would be called "sexual abuse"). Similarly, in mid-December the New York Times Magazine delivered a cover piece about gay teenagers in cyberspace which was so blasé about the older men who seek out boys in chat rooms that it dismissed those potential predators as mere "oldies." Again, one can only imagine the public outcry had the same magazine published a story taking the same so-what approach to online solicitation, off-line trysts, and pornography "sharing" between anonymous men and underage girls."
It is already illegal to belong to a religion that advocates being armed. Or at least that is what the BATF believes.
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.