Gay Parents Ready Kids for White House Easter Egg Roll

onthefence said:
I simply feel that they chose the wrong venue. The national story was just as this thread is named: Gay Parents Ready Kids for White House Easter Egg Roll. Instead of Kids Get Ready For Easter Egg Roll. There is a time and place for civil disobedience. A time honored national event for children just isn't it.

If any of this isn't clear to you, I'd be happy to draw you a picture.

Redhots, Read it slowly this time. Just because you didn't know such an event existed, doesn't mean that others didn't as well. I knew it existed. So here it is again nice and slow. There is a time and place to push a political agenda, a children's event is not that time or place. This should be a simple idea to grasp. I will no longer respond to your moronic statements, as they make no sense. Good night and may God Bless all liberals with your ignorance, so as to make my job easier when I run for office. :fu2:
 
Redhots said:
Point it out to whom, the 7 year olds? I imagine none of the kids there were the wiser, unless one of their parents pointed it out to them. All they wore were colored leis.



Because staying the closet has worked so well in the past.



Are heterosexual parents being discriminated against by the state for being heterosexuals?

Also unlike other minorites homosexuals don't wear it on their sleaves because being homosexual crosses all color, gender, and economic lines. So they have to speak up, otherwise you probably wouldn't know.

Out fo the mouth of babes .....

No shit. And no one WANTS to know. The whole damned issue here is people with abnormal sexual behavior not only forcing it into the public, but demanding it be accepted as normal behavior. The whole pro-gay argument and agenda is bullshit.

I don't see heterosexuals walking around announcing their sexual orientation. There's no tuity-fruity t-shirt to claim membership in "the club" of normalcy.

The bottom line here is gays used a Nationally-covered media event for children to grandstand their agenda.
 
Redhots said:
I don't think they're selfish, but I do agree people shouldn't give a shit about what they do.





How did you form that opnion?

Hey hots wake the fuck up, its not about what they do in private but rather invading all layers of society such as the educational system and teaching that it is alright and a valid alternative to male/female relationships despite all the voluminous information out there that proves that it is highly dangerous.
 
Redhots said:
This is how civil rights movements work.



.

CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!! LMFAO! Homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists are not being denied any single right that they were not born with, they made a choice and along with that choice comes consequences, simple as that.
 
Redhots said:
Well I'd tell them to fuck off.

Molesting children is against the law. Being gay is not.

Two totaly seperate issues and practices.

Yes but where does it stop? If queers who are obviously sick and morally bankrupt are given SPECIAL rights then why can't pedophiles then make the same bogus claim that homos do and say they can't help it, they were born this way.
 
Nuc said:
Thank God the Duke Lacrosse team are not gay. They're very wholesome as a result of being straight.

Yep find the highly publicized event(not that there is any proof but hey the media says it happened) and apply it here. Better to have something like this happen between males and a female than to happen between two sausages, at least they were naturally correct.
 
OCA said:
Yep find the highly publicized event(not that there is any proof but hey the media says it happened) and apply it here. Better to have something like this happen between males and a female than to happen between two sausages, at least they were naturally correct.

Now rape is natural and love between two people isn't? OK, you've won me over. I think I'll go out and rape a woman now.
 
OCA said:
Yep find the highly publicized event(not that there is any proof but hey the media says it happened) and apply it here. Better to have something like this happen between males and a female than to happen between two sausages, at least they were naturally correct.

I don't think you really want to imply that rape of a woman is natural where consensual sex between two gay males isn't. Do you?
 
I care as much what people think of gay people as I care about their tastes in music.

I'm not going to get into the arguement of "is it a choice, or isn't it" because even if it was a choice I would say; So what?

Is it abnormal? Yes.

But being abnormal does not make something wrong or immoral by defult.

Yet we have states now that are trying to break up families because of it.

I have yet to hear any kind of senseible argument for why homosexuality is a bad thing.

Being an abomination in the eyes of (g)od doesn't count. I don't want to live under a theocracy. Who does?

And I don't want to hear about your slippery bullshit either.
 
OCA said:
Yes but where does it stop? If queers who are obviously sick and morally bankrupt are given SPECIAL rights then why can't pedophiles then make the same bogus claim that homos do and say they can't help it, they were born this way.

Because in the first case you have two consenting adults having sex and in the second you have an adult raping a child.... :dunno:
 
Redhots said:
I care as much what people think of gay people as I care about their tastes in music.

I'm not going to get into the arguement of "is it a choice, or isn't it" because even if it was a choice I would say; So what?

Is it abnormal? Yes.

But being abnormal does not make something wrong or immoral by defult.

Yet we have states now that are trying to break up families because of it.

I have yet to hear any kind of senseible argument for why homosexuality is a bad thing.

Being an abomination in the eyes of (g)od doesn't count. I don't want to live under a theocracy. Who does?

And I don't want to hear about your slippery bullshit either.

Let's take these two statement to the extreme.

The state of Colorado has no laws against beastiality. If a single parent (due to divorce) participates in this kind of activity, it is certainly abnormal.

But is it wrong? Or immoral?

If there is no law against it, then the parent can have a couple of german shepards or sheep around the house to get their jollies from.

The child is exposed to it. Is that wrong? Should that family be "broken up" because of what the parent does in the privacy of his/her own home (that isn't illegal)?
 
GotZoom said:
Let's take these two statement to the extreme.

The state of Colorado has no laws against beastiality. If a single parent (due to divorce) participates in this kind of activity, it is certainly abnormal.

But is it wrong? Or immoral?

If there is no law against it, then the parent can have a couple of german shepards or sheep around the house to get their jollies from.

The child is exposed to it. Is that wrong? Should that family be "broken up" because of what the parent does in the privacy of his/her own home (that isn't illegal)?

Bestiality violates the rights of the animal.

Words like abnormal are problematic. For example most people work for someone else, so being self-employed is abnormal. Over 90% of the people in this country are Christian, so other religions are abnormal if by that you mean outside the norm. Only insane people would suggest taking away the children of self employed or Jews for example.

I would say any parents who have sex in front of their children whether gay, straight or bestial as you suggest, should have their kids taken away.
 
Nuc said:
Bestiality violates the rights of the animal.

Words like abnormal are problematic. For example most people work for someone else, so being self-employed is abnormal. Over 90% of the people in this country are Christian, so other religions are abnormal if by that you mean outside the norm. Only insane people would suggest taking away the children of self employed or Jews for example.

I would say any parents who have sex in front of their children whether gay, straight or bestial as you suggest, should have their kids taken away.

It doesn't violate the rights of the animal in Colorado. Therefore, it isn't illegal.

I agree about the parents who have sex in front of their children. What if the german shephard/sheep loving parent in Colorado doesn't do it in front of the child..but the child still knows?

According to RH, this isn't a problem.
 
Nuc said:
Now rape is natural and love between two people isn't? OK, you've won me over. I think I'll go out and rape a woman now.

Yep, like a lib you feed words into my mouth or as it is better known hearing, or in this case reading what you want to hear or read.

No proof of anything happening in the Duke case other than the word of a stripper. DNA tests are negative. But hey the media thinks they are guilty so lets lock em up already.
 
jillian said:
I don't think you really want to imply that rape of a woman is natural where consensual sex between two gay males isn't. Do you?

Rape correct? No lib you did not read that, what I said is that at least it wasn't guys raping guys, at least they have the order of things correct.

And yes consensual sodomy between two males is never correct.
 
OCA said:
Yep, like a lib you feed words into my mouth or as it is better known hearing, or in this case reading what you want to hear or read.

No proof of anything happening in the Duke case other than the word of a stripper. DNA tests are negative. But hey the media thinks they are guilty so lets lock em up already.

Hey...She got free college tuition out of Jesse Jackson. She's set.

And don't forget the other stripper...she has deal with a New York PR firm to "protect her interests.

Yeah...they are real worked up over this whole thing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top