Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on April 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
“I, and I believe most people, believe you are born with your sexuality. It is not a choice. It should offend us as Republicans and Americans when gays are denigrated as degenerates or un-American or undeserving of the government’s protection of their rights. And the Republican Party should give voice to genuine outrage when anyone belittles the humanity of another person. It is offensive in the extreme to the values of this nation, and we should be in the forefront of rejecting such truly un-American prejudice. Moreover, if you believe we are born with our sexual orientation, it is hard to deny the inequality under the law that exists when people of one sexual orientation are allowed to marry and people of another are not…
As I said, I respect the opinions of Americans who oppose marriage for gay couples on religious grounds. I may disagree, but if you sincerely believe God’s revealed truth objects to it then it is perfectly honorable to oppose it. But those are not the grounds on which a political party should take or argue a position. If you put public policy issues to a religious test you risk becoming a religious party, and in a free country, a political party cannot remain viable in the long term if it is seen as sectarian.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
I find it amusing that “conservatives” don’t see the writing on the wall. Just 20-30 years ago the idea of gay marriage would of been laughable. Now it is a serious subject with state after state granting the right of marriage. Its pure gradualism my friends, but you will be surprised how quickly it upticks within the next generation.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 1:16 AM
Ya’ had to be there. :-)
Saltysam on April 18, 2009 at 1:16 AM
What point was she tying to make though?
I remember she said to count her out of hte herd because Plain was pro life and I said we didn’t want her in the herd…my only interaction with her…
CCRWM on April 18, 2009 at 1:18 AM
So fight all you like. You will soon be a small rabid minority within 20-30 years.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 1:03 AM
You must not be paying attention to the muslim birthrate, or live in Minnesota.
I can’t wait, in fact I look forward, to seeing how the muslim apologists integrate with the gay marriage’ists; PT Barnum will have nothing on that coming circus.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 1:18 AM
Actually, yes. There are millions of people who refuse to admit that something might be wrong with them and if they think they can be rewarded for not changing, it’s all good.
Connie on April 18, 2009 at 1:19 AM
genetics and its subfields are different from that of evolutionary biology. you’re asking a question that can be answered without considering natural selection at all. we know that much about DNA and gene expression.
ernesto on April 18, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Again, even if the righties “die out” – and the only way I see this happening is via forced sterilization of people that want to have more than 2 children – I snark at your assertion that the lefties will outnumber the righties… The explanation should be quite evident in this post… Again, do you think that France will become more liberal (in the classical sense) or less within the next 50 years?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:19 AM
And yet they can’t grant it through a popular vote, but through a tiny number of individuals in a court. I wonder why that is…
TheRook on April 18, 2009 at 1:19 AM
She was adamant that the pro-life movement was dead.
That Palin would never win.
The party was too conservative.
etc
Salty, you remember anything else?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:21 AM
Just 20-30 years ago the idea of gay marriage would of been laughable.
It’s still laughable, then again a gallows-humor laughable candidate was elected for President last year, so we can all laugh together.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 1:22 AM
TEA-he-he
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:23 AM
I’m completely on board with that.
anuts on April 18, 2009 at 1:24 AM
The dirty little secret here is that the gay marriage vote is what killed Kerry in 2004. That ballot swept George W to a 2nd term. Too bad. Rove snookered you again.
TheRook on April 18, 2009 at 1:25 AM
Oh…then her head must have exploded last night if she saw Palin’s spech which has been replayed and replayed on Fox and on the internet over and over and over…
Thanks
CCRWM on April 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM
Are you telling us Allah, that this is the calibre of “argument” Schmidt summoned up for gay marriage? After all the countless gallons of ink which have been spent on this issue: on the meaning of marriage, the role of marriage and family in stable, ordered societies; the clash of gay rights and civil and religious rights, the fact that marriage itself is not a civil right etc. etc. etc. -this is the best argument Schmidt can offer? His best refutation and counterargument?
It’s unAmerican or something?
And McCain chose this clown as an advisor?
OK so if this is unAmerican, why is it that Americans have overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage time and time again at the polls? Which part of the word ‘no’ does Schmidt not understand?
saint on April 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM
Oh I am paying attention to the muslim birthrate, but most of that isn’t here. Our biggest immigration problem is on our southern border by the way. Also, I am definitely no muslim apologist. I just don’t have any problem with gay people or gay marriage and I don’t see how it leads to polygamy, bestiality, etc.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM
What it leads to is the dissolution of those things that benefit society as a whole.
Connie on April 18, 2009 at 1:30 AM
What we are seeing is an abuse of power. A small group of activists are using the full force of the government to impose its will upon the people. This is hardly a relaxing of attitudes.
I find it amusing that the writing on the wall has never been written by the hand of the people. The states you refer to are cases of judicial fiat, and recently a state legislature. This “state after state” narrative that you’ve fabricated stands in stark contrast to the 30 states that have recently put this question to referendum, and ALL rejected the concept…even California. Talk about writing on the wall.
Saltysam on April 18, 2009 at 1:30 AM
First, What about France? All those ardent leftists and all?
Second, if you legalize gay marriage because not legalizing it is “discriminatory,” then how don’t you legalize polygamy? What’s your argument? You’re the one that’s advocating this…
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:30 AM
Gay marriage, or whatever you call it, will happen if for no other reason than there’s a growing number of people who will say “Yeah, ok, sure” as they did when pulling the lever for Obowa without understanding the significance.
Still, I’m going to enjoy the ‘gayosity is genetic’ crowd bumping into the people who will abort their babies because of having the gay gene. Over/under for libs suddenly deciding that the unborn need to be protected, or better yet only designated unborn. Comedy gold.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 1:31 AM
It is strange to see many gays fighting so furiously to defeat conservative Christians. If they win, they are going to have fewer people willing and able to protect them from the rapidly growing population of Muslim extremists who not only do not support gay marriage, but want to kill all homosexuals.
Logic.
Loxodonta on April 18, 2009 at 1:31 AM
You see this is exactly where your argument doesn’t hold water. 30 years ago what percentage of people would have voted for gay marriage? Whatever that number would have been it would definitely be higher now. This is a gradual process. What is is fascinating is that the acceptance of interracial marriage took the exact same path. 50 years ago it had virtually no acceptance and now it is pretty much universally accepted.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 1:32 AM
Debate in my local paper:
AP sources: NY governor wants gay marriage bill
Connie on April 18, 2009 at 1:33 AM
Why, does he want to tax that now too?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:33 AM
Silver is in some denial here?
TheRook on April 18, 2009 at 1:34 AM
Progressivism?
Connie on April 18, 2009 at 1:35 AM
First of all who gives a crap about France. Second all gay marriage does is change the “definition” of marriage from just one man and one woman to one person and one person.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 1:35 AM
It may be neither. Think of reproduction as essentially a chemical reaction with minimalistic control mechanisms. If the reaction strays too far outside acceptable tolerances, you have catastrophic failure(death).
Inside those tolerances you may still have failures. Turner’s, Down’s or simple subtle incongruities that have no apparent affect but none the less effect the resulting person in a profound manner.
It may be one or more variables within the process itself that have nothing to do the material supplied(temperature, chemical balances, etc.).
elgeneralisimo on April 18, 2009 at 1:36 AM
Oh I am paying attention to the muslim birthrate, but most of that isn’t here. Our biggest immigration problem is on our southern border by the way. Also, I am definitely no muslim apologist. I just don’t have any problem with gay people or gay marriage and I don’t see how it leads to polygamy, bestiality, etc.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM
Well, the muslim apologists are advocating all sorts of special dispensations for muslims, trying to combine those with gay marriage will certainly be a treat to manage. Muslims advocacy groups are offended by pretty much everything, wait until they decide that gay marriage offends them too.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 1:36 AM
I am amazed that we all bend over backwards (no pun intended) for 4% of the population. Who CARES what gays think?
Warner Todd Huston on April 18, 2009 at 1:36 AM
Apparently you don’t, Terry.
You didn’t answer my question. Here’s my response to your non-answer. I think that if you don’t issue marriage certificates to Bob, Linda, and Joanne, you are discriminating against their basic human rights for the government to recognize their love, and anyone that objects to this is being silly, because we have just changed the definition of marriage to a love contract between three people – no big deal.
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:38 AM
;) Sure. Why not? And Murphy is leading Tedisco now because of The Post-Star & Maury Thompson. They may may have endorsed Tedisco, but they supported Murphy throughout the campaign and had to write reams of explanations of how the editorial board (made up of like 4 people) had such a hard time with their decision.
Connie on April 18, 2009 at 1:38 AM
BTW, I recall that Ms McCain complained about spending time on her father’s bus with olfaction assaulting shower-deficient campaign workers and clogged toilets (which is why no doubt she “fell in love with the Republican party”).
Even without the verbal diarrhea above, that to me suggests Schmidt is a GOP health hazard.
saint on April 18, 2009 at 1:40 AM
Don’t think the libs would give up abortion for anything including gays(it’s their religion after all, like sacrificing to Molech). So guess who gets thrown under the bus?
Christian Conservative on April 18, 2009 at 1:40 AM
elgeneralisimo on April 18, 2009 at 1:36 AM
Still though, nature weeds out the deficient; the base line still demands reproduction no matter how convoluted the process has become. If a species becomes 100% homosexual it will fail to survive.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 1:41 AM
I’m thinking Patterson will be a one term governor, but then look at Arnold’s “success.”
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:41 AM
It changes the societal perception of marriage. It loosens the concept, which will lead to the dissolution of the concept & chaos.
Connie on April 18, 2009 at 1:41 AM
It’s fascinating to me that your fallback position is always the civil rights position of the 60′s. Interracial marriage was still STILL between a man and a woman. And so it becomes the possibility that the electorate is not as enlightened as you….Your piggyback on the civil rights movement (which was rejected by Democrats) has become tiresome…
TheRook on April 18, 2009 at 1:42 AM
She (he?) was posing a profile as a disgruntled Hillary supporter, though that was never directly expressed. Gave the impression that she had been married before, middle ageish, originally from the South, but now a tye dye wearing, organic tomato eatin’, moonbeam gal livin’ in the sunshine state.
Supposedly voted for McCain, primarily because she “supported” Palin, though she didn’t agree with her on most things.
She spoke highly of Palin’s potential, but:
said that the GOP needs to lose the moral stuff or else they’ll never be a majority again…ever.
She called them anti abortion whackos and anti gay whackos.
I think Upstater85 was right. It’s Steve Schmidt in drag.
Saltysam on April 18, 2009 at 1:42 AM
Haha
Wow, you were quite articulate there. We’ll have to post a “WANTED” poster…
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:44 AM
Don’t think the libs would give up abortion for anything including gays(it’s their religion after all, like sacrificing to Molech). So guess who gets thrown under the bus?
Christian Conservative on April 18, 2009 at 1:40 AM
Won’t that be fun to watch, parents who said they aborted because their child was gay, just as aborters do now for children who have Downs? Equating, even in a sidelong way, mental retardation with homosexuality….whew, fireworks galore.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 1:44 AM
Well now, your argument isn’t exactly leak proof either. Gays have fewer kids. Blacks and particularly Hispanics have a lot more kids and they are among the biggest opponents of gay “marriage”. From the stats I saw they were responsible for the defeat of gay “marriage” in California. Mormons also have a lot of kids, although they will not add as many opponents to gay “marriage” as Blacks and not nearly as many as Hispanics. Lessening resistance among “Anglos” may argue in your favor but demographics do not.
MB4 on April 18, 2009 at 1:44 AM
To those fine folks defending ‘gay marriage’ by claiming religious entities would be free to reject such I am afraid you are deficient in your understanding of the theory(s) of slippery slopes.
Religious affiliated medical facilities, doctors, nurses and pharmacists will soon be requiredto perform procedures they are morally opposed too. Including if BHO has his way letting a living person that survives said procedure to die of neglect. In many if not most states doing this to a litter of animals is against the law. Hell, even in the military America has provided for conscientious objection.
Many Catholic doctors and nurses I know have stated in blunt terms that they will leave the field of medicine before they will perform such procedures. There are about 600 Catholic owned and operated hospitals in the USA. They feel that their only option will be to padlock their facilities because even the sale as a operating hospital that would perform abortions under different management would be a mortal sin. 600 hospitals shut down will not be good for those seeking services. Of course the benevolent government would immediately try to acquire those properties under eminent domain a procedure I hope the church will fight in court and quickly convert them to make them unusable as hospitals or destroy them rather than let them be used for immoral and sinful purposes. It is, after all their duty and their right to do so.
There has to be a name, derogatory, for anyone who would force another to do something he/she morally opposes. I can’t think of one at the moment but the words of Greg Gutfeld on Redeye is bouncing around in my Grey matter … “than you sir are worse than Hitler”.
LCL4 on April 18, 2009 at 1:45 AM
It’s already happening for girl vs. boy. Some feminists are upset. Some, they are more concerned about 0% population growth.
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:45 AM
You could make this ridiculous argument all you like. The fact is that gay marriage doesn’t change the number of people in a relationship. In every society known to man there has and always will be a gay community. It is time to accomodate these people.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 1:45 AM
Congrats! The most cogent argument I’ve heard today.
TheRook on April 18, 2009 at 1:45 AM
Watch to see what the far lefties say about Paterson. That’s what I think his endorsement of gay marriage is all about. He knows he needs to hang on to his base. If you see Kos start supporting someone like Cuomo, you’ll know the love fest is over.
Connie on April 18, 2009 at 1:46 AM
Weak, Terry, weak! I would expect better of someone that posts more than once. Dodge the question tsk… tsk…
There has always also been a polygamist community as well (excluding Adam and Eve, but I’m pretty sure they weren’t gay either…)… So your response would be?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:48 AM
The fact is that gay marriage doesn’t change the number of people in a relationship.
Who decided the number has to be set at two people?
I’m starting to feel repressed and marginalized.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 1:48 AM
I think he might get burnt in the end… In all honesty, Cuomo would be a more qualified governor than Paterson. Paterson is pathetic and totally the anti-Obama in the charisma dept.
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:50 AM
That would be a fun reality TV show, watching a bunch of libtards on a deserted island forced into cannibalism.
Saltysam on April 18, 2009 at 1:50 AM
Despot.
MB4 on April 18, 2009 at 1:50 AM
And what about Muslims who want polygamous marriages and claim that denial of this right is religious persecution?
What’s the liberal argument against that?
Loxodonta on April 18, 2009 at 1:50 AM
Silly, Bishop, unlike polygamy, there has always been a large vibrant homosexual community…
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:50 AM
Terry fears the Tea Party!
TheRook on April 18, 2009 at 1:50 AM
Which gene causes that accent?
Ronnie on April 18, 2009 at 1:51 AM
I’m thinking Michael More or Al Gore would go first. What about you guys?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:51 AM
What Teh Gay accent? Well, that would be Teh Gay Jean!!!
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:52 AM
OK. Now you are all getting silly. You’re making me laugh.
Loxodonta on April 18, 2009 at 1:53 AM
You know what I find amusing is how perception of events change over time. When interracial marriage became legal throughout the south (after Loving vs. Virginia) most people didn’t approve of it. When Truman desegregated the armed forces, many also disapproved. Looking back Americans almost can’t believe that those actions were so widely panned. This my friends will be the story of the gay marriage struggle in 50 years.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 1:53 AM
Carry a magic marker in your car. The next time you see a parked car with a
Marriage is between one man and one woman
bumper sticker take out your magic marker and change it to
Marriage is between one man and
onefour womaenMB4 on April 18, 2009 at 1:54 AM
I accept and understand that gays are born with their sexuality. What I find frustrating is that so many gay people do not accept their sexuality and it’s limitations. I support domestic partnerships that allow them to will/inherit assets. (I’m told they need also need protection to be able to visit each other in the hospital, but for the life of me I have not heard of a gay person being barred from their partner’s hospital bed since the 80′s!)
Another limitation: two people of the same sex cannot create children. Wishing won’t make it so. Again, I will they would accept their sexuality and its limitation and focus on living happily with their partner.
nametaken on April 18, 2009 at 1:54 AM
Terry, be a straight shooter with us. Will you be with me in supporting Bawney when he wants to “Pony” up with the Horse at the local stable? I know a lot of people will disagree, but you and I will defend what’s right, no?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:55 AM
And, why again should we listen to one of the schmucks responsible for one of the worst GOP campaigns in history??
Warner Todd Huston on April 18, 2009 at 1:56 AM
You know what, I have a solution. No government involvement. No tax breaks, no “official marriages or unions”. If you want to get married you have to find a church to marry you. How does that sound?
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 1:56 AM
Hmmm… look at my threads a bit back… A lot of people here don’t disagree with you on this.
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:57 AM
My “liberal” argument is screw them. Marriage is between two people. Period.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 1:57 AM
Although I seriously question your Obama-luv’n credentials if you think the government should, well, er, have less power…
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:58 AM
Exactly, whats wrong with that.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 1:58 AM
You know what, I have a solution. No government involvement. No tax breaks, no “official marriages or unions”. If you want to get married you have to find a church to marry you. How does that sound?
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 1:56 AM
What of the atheists? You are marginalizing and repressing again.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 1:59 AM
Terry, that’s not very liberal (in the classical sense) + I really want to see Bawney happy with the Stallion… don’t you?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 1:59 AM
What will the church be called? The Church of the Damned?
Ha,ha, only kidding, maybe.
MB4 on April 18, 2009 at 1:59 AM
Proof, please?
Connie on April 18, 2009 at 2:00 AM
But then you had to ruin it for us by limiting it to two people…
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:00 AM
My “liberal” argument is screw them. Marriage is between two people. Period.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 1:57 AM
On what basis did you choose “two” as being the acceptable number of people who should be allowed to be “married”?
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 2:01 AM
Or two humans?
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:02 AM
The abuse we suffer. It never ends. And we are so lovable too. I just don’t understand.
MB4 on April 18, 2009 at 2:02 AM
Actually I’m an old school liberal who’s not that old
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:02 AM
Jose and Maria and their 7 children just put that fantasy back into the..er..closet.
Saltysam on April 18, 2009 at 2:02 AM
You might have gay marriage proponents rip off the bumper, smash the windows and leave behind a little note reading:
STOP THE HATE! NO ROOM FOR DEBATE!
It works on college campuses, why not shopping plazas?
Loxodonta on April 18, 2009 at 2:02 AM
AP via Twitter: Newest gay icon: Meghan McCain http://is.gd/t4oQ
Meghan McCain: A new gay icon?
Connie on April 18, 2009 at 2:02 AM
What you’re forgetting here is inevitability. You assume there is no stopping point. The fact is that the voters have put the brakes on your little pet project. What does that mean? Are Terry’s needs more important than the voter’s? If something becomes law 50 years from now is it more legit than the laws of the Founding Fathers? I think not…
TheRook on April 18, 2009 at 2:03 AM
OK, in all fairness, what is “old school liberalism?”
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:03 AM
More precisely, what is your definition of it.
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:05 AM
The abuse we suffer. It never ends. And we are so lovable too. I just don’t understand.
MB4 on April 18, 2009 at 2:02 AM
Apparently the government cannot be involved in any way in your “marriage” but you will be required to find a church to perform the actual service. Not sure how that all works exactly; I mean what if you only SAY you got married in a church and the government finds out you didn’t, then what? They can’t punish you, so……uh……
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 2:05 AM
Why?
Saltysam on April 18, 2009 at 2:05 AM
Respectfully, Terry, I did not quantify my example as “millions” of homosexuals that I don’t know or even “all” homosexuals that I have known, but as “several” that I have known. Most of the homosexuals that I have known live as I do in southern California where they are not persecuted as they are in third world countries. The imprecision of your argument does not advance it.
Let me be more precise and offer a specific example. A co-worker and I became friends when she — presumed to be a lesbian, but not yet “out” — faced a hostile work environment created by ill-informed colleagues who were concerned about sharing our building’s restroom with her and speculated openly about the details of her sex life. When they began to sabotage her career with the implicit consent of our common supervisor, I was the only co-worker to inform her and support her — quite to my career’s detriment and, may I add, with no personal regrets ever about following my conscience.
My friend married her lesbian partner of 16 years before Proposition 8 passed. Her partner is adamant that she — the partner — has been gay since birth. My friend told me that she always had crushes on boys and no interest in girls until she began her first lesbian affair at the age of 15 with a predatory adult female mentor after her father deserted the family. About 13 years ago, my friend fell in love or lust with a male co-worker she still considers her soulmate. After he exploited her feelings for a decade to use her ample job skills to benefit his career, he finally married his longtime live-in female partner of 20 years. My friend’s female partner is a person of high ethics and loyalty; as her friend, I counseled her to at least end their relationship honorably before pursuing our co-worker. Subsequently, we stopped being friends.
These are facts, even if they don’t support your preconceived notions. I’m certain that you can find elective homosexuals on your own if you try. Surprise me.
Terrie on April 18, 2009 at 2:06 AM
Still like to know why gay marriage needs to be accepted but only between two people. Period.
Bishop on April 18, 2009 at 2:09 AM
You can take that to el banco, Gringo.
NoBordersJose on April 18, 2009 at 2:09 AM
Old school liberalism is definitely not the liberalism of today. Today a liberal defends a foreign country before their own and is a moral relativist. I am pro USA, pro second amendment, and pro fiscal conservative. On the other hand I am liberal when it comes to legislating peoples lives, which includes gay marriage or abortion. I also believe that we should be but not necessarily are a secular nation.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:10 AM
Terry is busy explaining why he/she is a liberal in the classical sense…
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:10 AM
Oh yeah I am also in favor of a strong military.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:11 AM
This my friends will be the story of the polygamous marriage struggle in 60 years.
Loxodonta on April 18, 2009 at 2:11 AM
The idea of gay marriage has actually been laughable for the last 5000 years or so.
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 2:12 AM
This tends to be, uh, libertarianism… Yet, I get the impression that you don’t self-identify… A libertarian wouldn’t make an “argument” for gay marriage but not the right for polygamists to marry multiple lovers.
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:12 AM
WHY ARE WE LISTENING TO THIS CAMPAIGN?
Who cares what Meghan says, or this guy? They ran a pathetic campaign.
Shut up already.
TTheoLogan on April 18, 2009 at 2:12 AM
Apparently AP does…
Upstater85 on April 18, 2009 at 2:13 AM
Well…there you have it, Senior Plata.
Saltysam on April 18, 2009 at 2:14 AM
I understand that some people become gay or gay for a time because of certain situations. This happens all the time in prison. Perfectly straight people become gay temporarily or permanently because of an enviroment. That still doesn’t account for the vast majority of gay people.
Terry Silver on April 18, 2009 at 2:14 AM
Unfortunately, social liberalism leads to fiscal liberalism.
Connie on April 18, 2009 at 2:14 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »