You guys are hilarious today. Anyways...I think you're putting WAY too many words in my mouth. It seems like you libs are the ones with the sexual issues. LOL...You liberals want the U.S. to get to the point where if someone says their daughter or son is getting married, they will need to clarify if it is to a member of the opposite sex or not.
Look...people have a right to have all the gay sex they want. What can't be legislated, however, is moral acceptance and condoning of homosexuality, and that is what is so frustrating for the liberal gay movement. They just can't seem to successfully force their values on those evil heterosexual people.
Re-read the thread. A politician says that he hopes his kids grow up to be happy - and if they happen to be gay, he hopes they find someone to make them happy. You in turn spin your visions of little children having sex and say that others are the ones with issues? The fact that you focussed on the sexual act speaks volumes.
It's not a matter of forcing you to like gay people, have gay sex, or even accept it from your own supposed "moral" standpoint. It's not a matter of any of that -- it's a matter that as long as the government is in the business of providing special rights to couples, some gay folks want and should have these same rights.
Hopefully you can see that it's not about children eating pu$$y - it's about equal treatment under the law and the unwillingness of many to MTOFB.
Ask yourself this. If a gay couple pledged to be celibate - what would your objection be then?
Just because someone has sexual impulses toward a different sex (or a different species -- watch for it, that's coming next) doesn't mean it's right to act on them, or make it a public celebration.
If my son killed someone drunk driving, I'd still "love him" but then I wouldn't go around campaigning to make drunk driving legal, would I? Ah, but using liberal 'logic,' I would. Dodd is missing the point -- though I suspect he's being obtuse on purpose, in order to gain unwarranted emotional sympathy for the homo agenda.
The discerning can see through the facade and know better.
If my son killed someone drunk driving, I'd still "love him" but then I wouldn't go around campaigning to make drunk driving legal, would I? Ah, but using liberal 'logic,' I would. Dodd is missing the point -- though I suspect he's being obtuse on purpose, in order to gain unwarranted emotional sympathy for the homo agenda.
The discerning can see through the facade and know better.
KTVEGAS...I wouldn't give a shit if what a gay couple would or wouldn't do. Why is it that a gay's sexuality is somehow more important than a heterosexual person's sexuality? You touched on it with the "special rights" comment. It's all about the "special" nature of homosexuals and how they need to be socially elevated and celebrated.
uke1:
uke1:KTVEGAS...I wouldn't give a shit if what a gay couple would or wouldn't do. Why is it that a gay's sexuality is somehow more important than a heterosexual person's sexuality? You touched on it with the "special rights" comment. It's all about the "special" nature of homosexuals and how they need to be elevated and celebrated.
Re-read what I said. The government provides SPECIAL RIGHTS to couples --- the gay folks are not asking seperate or different rights, merely equal rights already granted to others.
KTVEGAS...I wouldn't give a shit if what a gay couple would or wouldn't do. Why is it that a gay's sexuality is somehow more important than a heterosexual person's sexuality? You touched on it with the "special rights" comment. It's all about the "special" nature of homosexuals and how they need to be socially elevated and celebrated.
uke1: is right!Typical diversion. Nothing to do with the thread topic of Dodd and his kids. Does an athlete coming out and saying they are gay in any way shape or form affect you or your kids?
I'd say leaving images in the cache of your browser of the gag clothing sites you visit might have a larger impact.
Question for all you weak and confused homo sympathizers...
If animal rights activists succeed in declaring a chimp a person, does this mean liberals will join the PC crusade of making bestiality socially acceptable?
uppy:
If animal rights activists succeed in declaring a chimp a person, does this mean liberals will join the PC crusade of making bestiality socially acceptable?
uppy:
