Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

The Gay Takeover of America

matt261 Wrote: May 09, 2013 8:33 PM
Now that is true Christianity for you!
In response to:

The Gay Takeover of America

matt261 Wrote: May 09, 2013 8:32 PM
Hey, two men have the same right to kiss as everybody else. If it is such a problem, maybe you should develop a no-gays-allowed gated community and never leave it. And tell me, how do you "face it head on"?
In response to:

The Gay Takeover of America

matt261 Wrote: May 09, 2013 5:00 PM
Crystal, no one is making you accept anything. If you don't like the news or what's on tv, then turn it off. Gay activists cannot force people to do anything--just because they are successful at some of their initiatives doesn't mean that force was used--they aren't holding a gun to anybody's head. If the Boy Scouts don't want gays in their midst, then they should get a spine and say no. But again, persuasion does not equal force. Ultimately, you're whining about current events and the fact that news agencies cover them. It's like saying that crazies with guns are now in control because we hear so much about Newtown. Part of living in a free society is ignoring the stuff you don't like... Moreover, you'd be more persuasive if you...
In response to:

The Gay Takeover of America

matt261 Wrote: May 09, 2013 4:51 PM
You're ignorant of the history of the word. Activists did not coin the word and adopt it to describe homosexuals. It was applied by the larger culture, primarily as a pejorative because the word has (had) a connotation of frivolous and other things that were stereotypes.
Who cares if there is a genetic component or not? Ultimately, it is irrelevant. Does religion have a genetic component? Do any of the Bill of Rights turn on a genetic component? Is Jason Collins considered brave because there's some presumed genetic component to being gay? No. It's because people believe it takes bravery to do what he did when he knew he'd be a target of hostility. And looking around the web many folks have exercised their Firt Amendment right to say whatever they want about Collins, from very positive to very negative. And you know what, the exercise of such rights does not rely on genetics. So, really, the vast majority of our rights are ours regardless of any genetic predisposition we may or may not have.
I think we're past the point of splitting hairs. So Sanford didn't hire prostitutes. This is what he did do: adultery, lying, misused taxpayer money to enable his adultery, trespassed, and foisted the mistress on his poor kids after winning the nomination. Just because Eliot Spitzer is a bum does not mean Sanford isn't. The problem is that the Republicans claim to be better than such stuff, Democrats don't...
So, when will the retraction and apology come, ever? see: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=40162
In response to:

Liberals Go Crazy For The Mentally Ill

matt261 Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 9:20 AM
NIMH on severe mental illness and violence: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2011/understanding-severe-mental-illness.shtml
I thought Scouts were supposed to be tough and yet they are whining about being bullied. Geez. And this Stemberger is a liar--gays are not allowed to participate, if there is any suspicion that a member or leader is gay they are booted no matter how discreet they are. But ultimately, the Scouts can do whatever they want and gay folks should accept that and move on.
In response to:

When Not Tying the Knot Is Not Good

matt261 Wrote: Mar 22, 2013 12:07 PM
Certainly some gays are seeking societal approval thru the courts, but not all. Most gay couples seek security and stability and they do so because they're human. To so easily discount that shows you to be pretty cold and hard-hearted, yankette. Then to blame the devaluation of marriage on the attention currently paid to gay marriage is utterly absurd. Heterosexuals began devaluing marriage long ago when divorce rates starting going thru the roof. The devaluation of marriage is neither recent nor something that can be blamed on gay folks.
In response to:

Fusion Power on the Right

matt261 Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 9:48 AM
Rand Paul has the right approach. In the current DOMA case, only section 3 is before the Supreme Court. And that section deals solely with how the federal government defines marriage, not what states have to recognize or not recognize. So, don't worry about "subsidizing gay sex" whatever that means. Though, considering that low-income gay men with hiv qualify for gov't benefits now--especially for medications--well then you may already be "subsidizing gay sex."
Previous 11 - 20 Next