At least it was not done in the open public, and had Craig not been cought, he could have continued to fight againts the homosexual agenda. IMO, his private dalliances are not so important provided they are kept private - it is the public fight againts the agenda that is important. In much the same way Sanford publically faught for the sanctity of marriage, and againts adultery.

^ Is a great suggestion. And not just with CT but with any other long-winded post. I have half a mind to pry CT's enter key out of his keyboard.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

That's pretty messed up dude. You're saying that when homosexuals had to be afraid of being jailed, beaten, killed, or fired simply for being who they are, that was the good old days? Am I reading that wrong? By the way, most of those issues are still faced by homosexuals.
You are really afraid that you can't force your religious beliefs on to your child if gays are open? You really think that will complicate you filling your childrens minds with these ideas?

You can have your own silly idea of homosexuality being a sin, but using that as a rational for public or social policy is ludicrous. Our Constitution does not include a clause dictating Christianity as the nation's moral compass and no court has ever upheld any law or decision based on religious premise or precedent.
Sorry, not everyone shares your belief. These "conflicting influences" are a part of life, not a war. It's called freedom of religion. I'm free to worship Joe Pesci, and your free to tell your children that being born a homosexual is a sin.
A homosexual being open prohibits the free exercise of your religion?

My religion dictates that christians who are not tolerant and who ignore the lessons of Christ do a disservice to their religion. My religion requires this being taught. Therefore YOU are interfering with my first amendment rights.

See how that doesn't make sense?
You want to enter my home and proselytize? Have you heard of private property? As far as I know you can knock on anyones door, but that doesn't require them to let you in.

__________________

Abidjan:

Everything wrxsti writes is tongue-in-cheek. None of it represents his own genuine views. He's lampooning homophobic nutcases, he isn't one.

Oh, ok haha.

__________________

I think he was being sarcastic. Though, he can correct me if I'm wrong.

__________________

dude he's being drippingly sarcastic lol.

happened to me too once or twice til someone clued me in

So is he like the forum's Stephen Colbert?

__________________

yes! but farther to the right and alot more subtle

Maybe if religious folk would pay their bills, and weren't such a pack of thieves, they wouldn't be persecuted so:

God Tattoo

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

Yeah, that's some sad ass bullshit. This is an indication of a larger problem that's happening in America. No decent people will even consider being a "politician." So we get all kinds of freaks, fruits and flakes running for positions. The American people have to decide to pick from these "choices." Pretty sad.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

Speaking of "urges":

-------------------------------

Redeeming the rainbow - Scott Lively

pg. 100

On the question of choice, it must be noted that all sex but rape is voluntary and thus every sexual act involves a conscious choice. A person’s inclination toward a form of sexual conduct may not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen, but the mere existence of desire does not justify the act. To accept otherwise would be to validate adultery and pedophilia.

Society has the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.

-------------------------------

Which is why this Larry Craig politician person caused such a ruckus getting busted in a public restroom soliciting for homosexual sex.

-------------------------------

Redeeming the rainbow - Scott Lively

pg. 101

By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The “gay” movement, however, officially recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why ? Because to recognize other orientations -- pedophilia, for example -- would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction.

-------------------------------

So is this Larry Craig politician person "gay" or was he just engaging in a form of perverted recreational adultery ?


Lets see, if he's "gay" he had no choice in the matter right ? If he was just engaging in a form of perverted recreational adultery he's kind of a creep.


So is he gay or is he a creep ? Maybe, like many people "gay," "straight" or "other" he just likes that "forbidden fruit." Its well known that forbidding something makes some want it all the more.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

this shit again. ct its ok if you like cock. none of us give a fuck. you don't have to justify your erection towards men with a "but its just the forbidden fruit thing". its ok dude.

Greetings and Felicitations,

That is because their leaders are building $4,000,000 houses while cutting support for their ministries.

Televangelist builds $4 milllion home while employees lose jobs

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

Excellent, Captain! My, you're making progress! You've just acknowledged that being gay is not a conscious choice. Thus, you cannot be condemned for the fact that you find erect penises and hairy chests exciting.

(Sigh.) Oh, well, one step forward, one back. I still have hope for you.

Sexual acts are indeed voluntary; however, the suggestion that they need to be "justified" is highly perverse and backwards. If you want to condemn a sex act, THAT needs to be justified. One reason to do so is if it is nonconsensual on the part of a victim. Another reason is that it violates personal commitments, e.g. to a monogamous partner. But we begin, or we should, with the premise that sex is good -- we do not start with the premise that it's bad, and require that it be "justified."

Society has however the obligation to demonstrate that the desires are indeed "harmful," and NOT just to those indulging them. Moreover, society has the obligation to demonstrate that indulging these desires does MORE harm than enacting laws to suppress them, since such laws will themselves always do harm.

Aside from rape (in which category I include pedophilia), I can't think of a sex act that would meet that test.

No, he caused such a ruckus because he is such a blatant hypocrite. If he had been pro-gay-rights, the ruckus would have been much less.

He had no choice about being attracted to other men. That's true.

Any more than you do.