Bill O'Reilly & Homosexuality - Tonight on The Factor (O'Reilly, a homodupe, spins out)

Good words indeed.

God Bless

21 posted on 12/04/2002 10:05:18 AM PST by Clint N. Suhks

Thanks for the ping, bump.

22 posted on 12/04/2002 10:54:09 AM PST by scripter

To: Always Right

I don't understand why he is so rabidly perverted on this issue.

why does Bill Buckley support legalization of marijuana?

23 posted on 12/04/2002 11:08:08 AM PST by mac_truck

O'Reilly has been spun. He has been very, very spun.

Bump.

24 posted on 12/04/2002 11:33:05 AM PST by FourtySeven

To: Clint N. Suhks

A libertarian is a conservative without morality.

25 posted on 12/04/2002 11:33:17 AM PST by bribriagain

A libertarian wants limited government in people's personal and recognizes that there will always be homosexuality and that any effort to legally punish it is a bogus "conservative" cause.

26 posted on 12/04/2002 1:02:49 PM PST by CapedCrusader

Unspun, you've spun yourself into a tizzy. If there's any "distinctly protected [sexual] class of person, to be specially nurtured by society," it's, guess what....heterosexuals. Surely, you're not that blind.

27 posted on 12/04/2002 1:06:21 PM PST by CapedCrusader

I have found libertarianism to be lacking in the areas of responsibility and compassion.

This is rich. I'd love to hear you argue this.

28 posted on 12/04/2002 1:07:33 PM PST by CapedCrusader

To: CapedCrusader

I'll just say there are many instances that government has to take stands on our principles and become involved, in supporting the individuals, families, and institutions of a nation, not just sit idly by.

29 posted on 12/04/2002 2:21:39 PM PST by unspun

To: CapedCrusader

Looks like my sarcasm has gone for naught, at least on your first reading, my caped friend.

30 posted on 12/04/2002 2:26:26 PM PST by unspun

Ah, call it "sarcasm." Neat trick. I'll spin that next time I'm called on one of my comments.

Then is your "homodupe" post sarcasm? Methinks no. But, maybe you too "unspun" for me, clever one.

31 posted on 12/04/2002 2:58:49 PM PST by CapedCrusader

Wow, that's quite a strong stand there, unspun. You do shoot straight, don't you?

32 posted on 12/04/2002 3:01:36 PM PST by CapedCrusader

To: CapedCrusader

"If there's any "distinctly protected [sexual] class of person, to be specially nurtured by society," it's, guess what....heterosexuals. Surely, you're not that blind".

And surely you've heard of HomoFascism? Of what happened to Rolf Szabo, formerly of Kodak, for speaking up for HIS heterosexual rights? Of "hate crimes", which are in reality Thought Crimes, to protect the PervoNazis that infiltrate so much of society, where our children are helpless to brainwashing in elementary schools? You've heard of GLSEN and GLAAD, etc, right? NAMBLA is on it's way to legitimacy in a few years, because of the doors the protected species known as Calhoun's Rats have opened.

No, it's already gotten to the point that straight people are in imminent danger from a certainly dangerous group of individuals. Likely preachers are in the gunsights already.

34 posted on 12/04/2002 3:25:07 PM PST by JoJo Gunn

To: Clint N. Suhks

Conservatism absent social construct is called Liberaltarianism.

Vapid usage of empty slogans and catch words is called typical.

35 posted on 12/04/2002 3:30:38 PM PST by Pahuanui

Of course, I've heard of Szabo. He violated company policy and they had every right to fire him. Just as any company has the right to fire whatever employee for whatever reason, I believe.

NAMBLA on its way to legitimacy? Only in your most paranoid fantasies.

No, it's already gotten to the point that straight people are in imminent danger from a certainly dangerous group of individuals. Likely preachers are in the gunsights already.

Gadzooks, you are paranoid.

"There's an interior decorator in my living room and I think his caulk gun is loaded!"

36 posted on 12/04/2002 3:37:47 PM PST by CapedCrusader

To: CapedCrusader

It's obvious you are one of the Enablers. And since you think I'm paranoid, here's something for you to read.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021204-78946526.htm

Critics fear law for gays will muzzle preachers
By Ellen Sorokin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Pennsylvania Gov. Mark Schweiker yesterday signed legislation that gives homosexuals statewide legal protection from verbal harassment and hate crimes — a move that critics argue targets church leaders who preach against the homosexual lifestyle.
Critics said that they fear the law could be enforced too liberally to include pastors, preachers and other church leaders who during their sermons often quote passages from the Bible that denounce homosexuality. As a result, the law would then violate the church leaders' free speech rights and religious liberties.
"Those especially at risk are conservative religious people who may very well find themselves hauled into court unless they keep their mouths shut for being politically incorrect," said Laurel Lynn Petolicchio, a constitutional activist from Columbia, Pa.
"This legislation basically sets up for a lawsuit against any minister or religious leader who publicly states that certain sexual behavior is immoral or improper. That is in direct violation of the state Constitution."
Many pastors in the state agree. "If the legislation hints in the slightest of grounds for a lawsuit against a preacher, we fear that it will be greatly taken advantage of, to the point of abuse," said Jerry O'Donnell, president of the "Thus Saith The Lord" Ministries in Harrisburg, Pa. Mr. O'Donnell said that he is looking into getting insured against any legal actions he may face.
The legislation adds the phrase "ancestry, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity" to the state's Ethnic Intimidation law. The existing law calls for longer jail terms and higher fines for crimes motivated by hatred against victims because of race, color, religion or national origin.
The additional language means that someone convicted of attacking a homosexual because of his sexual orientation would face a longer jail term and stiffer fines, just as a person does now for targeting a racial minority.
"By signing this legislation, I am joining the General Assembly in sending a strong, clear message that Pennsylvania will not tolerate violence against anyone — period," said Mr. Schweiker, a Republican.
The legislation was drafted by Philadelphia-based Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights (CLGCR) and supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. The state House last week passed the measure 118-79, and the state Senate passed it 32-15 last year.
Opponents argued that the measure violates the "equal justice for all" principle.
"We should be looking at the crime, not trying to decide what the thoughts were of the perpetrator," said state Rep. Allan Egolf, a Republican who voted against the measure. "What we're doing is stripping away the blindfold on Lady Justice who doesn't see the person who committed the crime but is only considering the facts."
Advocates of the measure said that Pennsylvania now has the most inclusive legislation of its kind in the country and hailed it as a "breakthrough for principles of tolerance and social justice."
"This is important to gays and lesbians because the state legislators who voted for this bill made a statement that they will not tolerate violence towards their most vulnerable constituents," said Stacey Sobel, CLGCR's executive director.
Supporters also said the measure in no way punishes religious leaders.
Kathleen Daugherty, director of Harrisburg-based Lutheran Advocacy Ministry, which supports the measure, said that the law is meant to give law-enforcement authorities extra tools to prosecute those who attack homosexuals, not to take away the free speech rights of preachers and church leaders.
"What a minister is doing is not a crime," she said. "This measure is about the people who go after persons like Matthew Shepard and harm them. Pennsylvania needs to make a statement that we will not tolerate hate."
Mr. Shepard was a homosexual college student killed by local men in Wyoming in October 1998.
But others argue that it's their values that are being trampled.
"Not only are you not allowed to speak it, you're now not allowed to think it, and that's dangerous," said the Rev. Frederick Bieber of the Hanoverdale Church of the Brethren near Hummelstown, Pa.
"My concern is that it brings about what Christ spoke about how Christians are going to be hauled off and slaughtered for their beliefs, and that's what the supporters of this measure are bringing on. That's the only way they're going to shut me up anyway."

37 posted on 12/04/2002 3:46:02 PM PST by JoJo Gunn

38 posted on 12/04/2002 3:50:37 PM PST by JoJo Gunn

That's nice, but much as the Wash Times would like to spin it so, I don't see how this law could ever be applied to church sermons. It doesn't curtail free speech, at all. It only addresses crimes. Sorry, nervous nelly.

"Those especially at risk are conservative religious people who may very well find themselves hauled into court unless they keep their mouths shut for being politically incorrect," said Laurel Lynn Petolicchio, a constitutional activist from Columbia, Pa.

And any judge with half a brain would rightly haul the plantiffs' asses out of court.

"Not only are you not allowed to speak it, you're now not allowed to think it, and that's dangerous," said the Rev. Frederick Bieber of the Hanoverdale Church of the Brethren near Hummelstown, Pa.

Please join the rest of us "thinking" persons, Reverend.

And yes, it's worse to assault someone because of their race or religion or sexuality (as has recently happened in LA and San Diego when gay men were leaving bars) than it is to assault someone in a bar because they were hitting on your woman.

39 posted on 12/04/2002 4:12:30 PM PST by CapedCrusader

To: CapedCrusader

"Ah, call it "sarcasm." Neat trick. I'll spin that next time I'm called on one of my comments. Then is your "homodupe" post sarcasm? Methinks no. But, maybe you too "unspun" for me, clever one."

I'm saying that someone who believes that homosexuals should be granted a special status with rights (or rites) specific to their particular depravity is unfortunately, duped.

We all have our depravities. But that hardly makes any of us privileged.

40 posted on 12/04/2002 4:23:51 PM PST by unspun

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794