← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 15969 | Posts: 31 | Started: 2004-12-14
2004-12-14 15:59 | User Profile
-
Homosexuality, or, homothexualithy... :holiday:
[url]http://wsi.matriots.com/homosexuality.html[/url]
2004-12-14 19:16 | User Profile
I agree that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Why is homosexuality so much more heinous than any other sexual sin (the unnaturalness of it?)? Or is it?
What is the significant difference between heterosexual sin and homosexual sin within the Christian realm? Why does it seem to be that we, as Christians, see someone who professes to be a Christian but struggles with homosexuality a worse sin than someone who struggles with heterosexual immorality? Are not the two equally wrong? Will not both go to heaven even if they slip up from time to time as long as they are repentant and are striving to conquer their sin?
Even though we abhor the sin, should we be calling them fags and queers, etc.? Is it Christ-like to be mocking homosexuals with words like homothexsual? I am not saying that we should, in any way, condone the lifestyle, but I think we would be more effective in our arguments if we would refrain from the name calling. It only makes us look hateful. None of us is perfect and God still loves the homosexual.
I agree with much of what you all say in your blogs about homosexuality and I applaud and appreciate the frankness of discussion against the lifestyle and the "acceptance" of it in our society, but I must say that I do cringe when I see the epithets.
Having said all that, what is the intellectual (versus theological) reasoning as to why society should be against openly monogamous homosexual relationships/marriages? I realize that monogamy is not part of the homosexual agenda (thanks for posting the link), but most people believe that it is. Why should the secular world fight against openly homosexual lifestyles? Especially when they believe that people should be able to live any way they so choose.
2004-12-15 20:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Scout]I agree that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Why is homosexuality so much more heinous than any other sexual sin (the unnaturalness of it?)? Or is it?
What is the significant difference between heterosexual sin and homosexual sin within the Christian realm? Why does it seem to be that we, as Christians, see someone who professes to be a Christian but struggles with homosexuality a worse sin than someone who struggles with heterosexual immorality? Are not the two equally wrong? Will not both go to heaven even if they slip up from time to time as long as they are repentant and are striving to conquer their sin?
Even though we abhor the sin, should we be calling them fags and queers, etc.? Is it Christ-like to be mocking homosexuals with words like homothexsual? I am not saying that we should, in any way, condone the lifestyle, but I think we would be more effective in our arguments if we would refrain from the name calling. It only makes us look hateful. None of us is perfect and God still loves the homosexual.
I agree with much of what you all say in your blogs about homosexuality and I applaud and appreciate the frankness of discussion against the lifestyle and the "acceptance" of it in our society, but I must say that I do cringe when I see the epithets.
Having said all that, what is the intellectual (versus theological) reasoning as to why society should be against openly monogamous homosexual relationships/marriages? I realize that monogamy is not part of the homosexual agenda (thanks for posting the link), but most people believe that it is. Why should the secular world fight against openly homosexual lifestyles? Especially when they believe that people should be able to live any way they so choose.[/QUOTE]
Reply
Old Testament ââ¬Åsinââ¬Â is trespass against YHWHââ¬â¢s commandments, observances, related more to the children of Israel as a people (tribe) than individuals. The act of individuals shame and blame all, as in the punishment by Joshua, wasnââ¬â¢t it? when one selfishly kept booty from battle all had won. Leviticus 18.22 puts lying with a male as with a woman in the class of ââ¬Åabominationsââ¬Â previous ââ¬Åmen of the land (Cananites) have done and thus defiled the land.ââ¬Â It is to be presumed from this that it was not practiced, and not practiced because sexuality was part of holiness. Stories of destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah a half-century earlier would have been in there active historical memory, also.
The pseudoepigraphical book of Enoch2, from the 2nd or 3rd century B.C. specifies that corruption of children ââ¬Åin the Sodomitic fashionââ¬Â by people following the fallen angels of Azazel ââ¬â the ones booted from heaven ââ¬â is to be punished with torture, incessant flames, no escape, forever. Putting these together with what we have learned about human anatomy, hormones, and psychosexual development (Freud, Jung, Reich, et al), yields this picture, I think: the polymorphous perverse human male underwent an enormous struggle to renounce acheiving gratification, if it felt like, on childrenââ¬â¢s asses. Roman emperors included. . This would have have been ââ¬ÅSin of the first or lower order.ââ¬Â
My view is that this sin of the lower order has already been put aside by the people of the Book, that in fact being one of their main claims to advancement of human moral maturity. (Homosexuals today could agree, since this would be a sadistic perversion of what they call, uh, loving, committed relationships ââ¬â the point of ââ¬Åuhââ¬Â being not to smear the human quality of the characteristics, but to place their application in this instance outside the stream of development of these relationships for species reproduction (caring for and raising of children, etc.). This does not presuppose heterosexuality is ââ¬ÅGodââ¬â¢s planââ¬Â being worked out through human history, or prohibited by ââ¬Ënatural lawââ¬â¢ (which, though helpful guide, is insufficient as a moral principle, as illustrated by partial birth abortions to save the motherââ¬â¢s life ââ¬â or even avoid bringing a defective into the world) but it is compatible with these.
4. For it is impossible for those who were once illumined, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5. and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, *6. if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.ââ¬Â
In these terms, Mel Gibson, with his Jesus-hate movie, is more of asinner than butt-bangers Unless they try to connect their actual practices with holy things, as heterosexuals, but not they, would have right to do. And most donââ¬â¢t, probably (as a conscious thing).
[url]http://americanfreepress.net/html/vanunu.html[/url] Vanunu Speaks.
2004-12-15 20:51 | User Profile
From the beginning of time it all depended as to where you were at and the costumes of that place.
In Grece and Rome it was nothing to have sex with another man and even here in the US in the old days it was illegal and frown upon to either be a homo or to smoke grass,,,,, now days to do it is nothing and just about everyone is doing either one or the other, sometimes I feel that I am the only one not doing it.
It took about 1,600 year to write the Bible and over that period of time many things had a chance to change and by that happening to chage the Bible.
At one time the Jews were kicked out of over 60 countrys as trouble makers and even now as trouble makers they now control most country's with the US being the main one.
Some day (soon I hope) once again the world will oppose the Jews and will be back at square one.
"What was the truth yesterday is a lie today and what is a lie today will be the truth tomorrow",,, Ponce
2004-12-15 21:52 | User Profile
[quote=Texas Anarch]1. ââ¬ÅSin is sinââ¬Â No. This is where you are wrong (and illustrating precisely the kind of ââ¬Åis is isââ¬Â bird-brain mentality that goes with bob-tailed reasoning).
Fine, I was wrong. Did you have to be such an ass about it?
2004-12-15 23:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Scout]Fine, I was wrong. Did you have to be such an ass about it?[/QUOTE]
Does this mean you aren't going to defend yourself?
2004-12-16 00:07 | User Profile
He who bends like a bamboo won't break in two.
2004-12-16 00:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]Does this mean you aren't going to defend yourself?[/QUOTE] What do you mean defend myself? What's to do defend?
2004-12-16 02:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Scout]What do you mean defend myself? What's to do defend?[/QUOTE]
your ass
2004-12-16 03:13 | User Profile
I don't feel that TexasAnarch should be here, never said this before but this guy is out of hand.
2004-12-16 03:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]your ass[/QUOTE] Are you a Christian? By Christian, I mean, do you consider Jesus Christ to be Lord of your life?
As for sin being sin. The way I see it is that God sees sin as sin. If we have committed one sin, then we have disobeyed the Law. Period. When Eve partook of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and then so did Adam, was their sin worse than someone who has committed a homosexual act? Was their sin greater than those of Hitler or Sadaam Hussein? It does not appear so to me. It appears to me that it was just as bad in the eyes of God. They received the death penalty over their disobedience. They died spiritually and eventually physically.
I think sin is worse in the human eye, but not in God's eye. I am not saying that I am right, I am saying that that is how I see it at this point in time. I am trying to figure it out.
You are certainly free to disagree with me and that is perfectly fine with me. I do not have to be right. You do not have to resort to hatefulness to disagree.
2004-12-16 03:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Was their sin greater than those of Hitler [/QUOTE]
Hey...
All will kindly note that most of Hitler's acts were[B] reactions,[/B] not actions. Big difference there.
2004-12-16 04:03 | User Profile
[SIZE=7][COLOR=Red]Lev. 20 13[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Sodomites are sick!
2004-12-16 04:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Hey...
All will kindly note that most of Hitler's acts were reactions, not actions. Big difference there.
------[/QUOTE] A reaction is still an action, but it depends upon the action and reaction. If someone is trying to kill me, my reaction is to defend myself and is perfectly just. If someone is simply a different race or religion that does not give me license to annihilate them, does it?
What is the big difference here in regard to Hitler? What did the Jews do to Hitler that warranted their extermination/his reaction? Granted God uses the wicked to administer judgment, but the wicked are still responsible for their actions.
I appreciate your kindness.
2004-12-16 04:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust][size=7][color=red]Lev. 20 13[/color][/size]
Sodomites are sick![/QUOTE] I agree. :D Homosexuals are psychologically disturbed and have a perverted (not a pejorative) sense of sexuality, but must we call them names and be hateful toward them? There are Christians out there who struggle with homosexuality just like there are Christians out there who struggle with heterosexual fornication.
I personally think homosexuals should stay in the closet and it should still be a shame to openly admit to being homosexual and that it should be against the law. Though I believe that a homosexual should feel comfortable enough to go to his/her pastor to seek spiritual help and guidance. I believe that God can heal the homosexual. I have read numerous accounts of men and women who have given up the lifestyle and are leading heterosexual lives.
I am not saying that we should keep quiet and not speak out against homosexuality or not fight to keep it illegal, to the contrary. I just think when we do speak out against it we should not be hateful and judgmental about it. When I say judgmental I mean that we should not be condemning as if we are holier-than-thou and have never sinned and do not sin everyday of our lives.
2004-12-16 08:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Scout]I agree. :D Homosexuals are psychologically disturbed 1. and have a perverted (not a pejorative) sense of sexuality,
I personally think homosexuals should stay in the closet and it should still be a 3. shame to openly admit to being
and do not sin everyday of our lives.[/QUOTE]
they don't seem to me to be any more screwed up than you are. I've already told you what sin is and why sodomy was so regarded in history (it goes over to kids). You sound like a fetus worshipper.
If you sin every day, go to Church and get saved. Jesus will be glad to climb up on that old cross for youse, go through it all again. Better yet .. forget the entire thing ang try to Ghraib a little enjoyment on the side.
Whatever was shameful yesterday is shameful today, as well.
Are you a Jew for Jeezus?
2004-12-16 18:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]1. they don't seem to me to be any more screwed up than you are. [/QUOTE]
Haha... homosexuality is one of the biggest screwups there is... and the tip of an iceberg.
2004-12-16 19:11 | User Profile
Whatever else might be said about male homosexual sodomy, one thing is certain: It constitutes a dire public health risk.
The health problems homosexuals face is a medical horror story. And not just HIV/AIDS. Life expectancy is drastically shortened among those portions of our population, and those are sick years, too. Their quest for anal pleasure exacts a terrible social cost, including especially increased medical costs.
The OT strictures against it were evolutionarily sound. Those cultures that ban sodomy will have an evolutionary advantage over those that don't.
No sane society would tolerate it.
Walter
2004-12-16 19:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]1. they don't seem to me to be any more screwed up than you are. I've already told you what sin is and why sodomy was so regarded in history (it goes over to kids). You sound like a fetus worshipper.
If you sin every day, go to Church and get saved. Jesus will be glad to climb up on that old cross for youse, go through it all again. Better yet .. forget the entire thing ang try to Ghraib a little enjoyment on the side.
Whatever was shameful yesterday is shameful today, as well.
Are you a Jew for Jeezus?[/QUOTE] I do not care for your condescending tone, nor do I understand much of your obnoxious drivel and it is not because I am an idiot. Therefore, you are on ignore and I sugguest you do the same to me. :cowboy:
2004-12-16 19:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]1. they don't seem to me to be any more screwed up than you are. I've already told you what sin is and why sodomy was so regarded in history (it goes over to kids). You sound like a fetus worshipper.
If you sin every day, go to Church and get saved. Jesus will be glad to climb up on that old cross for youse, go through it all again. Better yet .. forget the entire thing ang try to Ghraib a little enjoyment on the side.
Whatever was shameful yesterday is shameful today, as well.
Are you a Jew for Jeezus?[/QUOTE]
Goodness gracious, TA. You still angry about Kerry losing to Bush or what?
2004-12-16 19:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Whatever else might be said about male homosexual sodomy, one thing is certain: It constitutes a dire public health risk.
The health problems homosexuals face is a medical horror story. And not just HIV/AIDS. Life expectancy is drastically shortened among those portions of our population, and those are sick years, too. Their quest for anal pleasure exacts a terrible social cost, including especially increased medical costs.
The OT strictures against it were evolutionarily sound. Those cultures that ban sodomy will have an evolutionary advantage over those that don't.
No sane society would tolerate it.
Walter[/QUOTE] Thanks Walter for your opinion. I guess that people really need to know the truth about the lifestyle which may persuade some that it should not be tolerated. I know people are not aware of how depraved the lifestyle truly is and I have mostly tried to stay away from that part of the lifestyle when trying to put forth my position on the subject. Mainly because I did not want to appear to be judgmental or malicious. But I can see now that neither is the case when trying to make a valid argument. It is simply the truth. I guess I will preface that I am in no way trying to be hateful or judgmental or whatever.
2004-12-16 19:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Scout]Thanks Walter for your opinion. I guess that people really need to know the truth about the lifestyle which may persuade some that it should not be tolerated. I know people are not aware of how depraved the lifestyle truly is and I have mostly tried to stay away from that part of the lifestyle when trying to put forth my position on the subject. Mainly because I did not want to appear to be judgmental or malicious. But I can see now that neither is the case when trying to make a valid argument. It is simply the truth. I guess I will preface that I am in no way trying to be hateful or judgmental or whatever.[/QUOTE]
I've known lots of fags in my life. I even counted a couple of them among my friends (although that was back in my libertarian days, I wouldn't socialize with a fag now). My experience with them is that they lead lives of appalling debauchery. These guys had literally hundreds of lovers. They'd go to these sodomite bathhouses and "do" a dozen other guys in a night. These places had 10 gallon drums of mouthwash in the center of the shower room.
One fellow named Neil died of AIDS back in the late 1980's. It was horrible. He told me the circumstances in which he contracted the virus. He was at a gay porno shop where he was sodomized by several guys in a night. He said "how could I have been so stupid." That's not stupid, though. That's a very serious death wish. He was a good guy, actually. Talented. Smart. Witty. He was always unhappy, though. He just had this scourge of a sexual addiction that he couldn't do anything about.
Speaking of which, Neil also told me that he thinks that he became a fag when he was molested by his black nanny when he was about 8 years old. I remember he said that the few times he had sex with a woman he felt horrible beyond words. Sad.
From my experience most faggots are made, not born. They had some sexual experience usually with an older faggot at an impressionable age and the damage was done. Which is another good reason that they should be chemically castrated with Depo Provera upon a first conviction, and then executed upon a second conviction. They present a clear danger to the youth of our country.
Like Michael Jackson, no sane society would tolerate their presence.
Walter
2004-12-16 20:51 | User Profile
You are right. I am well aware of the debauched lifestyle. It is too sad.
And your are right that homosexuals are made and not born. It has a lot to do with their parental bonding and their environment. And, like you said, some have been molested in their young lives. I have done a good bit of study on the subject, though not, in any sense, an exhaustive one. The politics and agenda of it all is just sickening. Even more sickening is that much of the church is acceptant of the lifestyle lest we should offend. :yucky: Sorry, but the gospel offends.
Please tell me, Walter, why you feel the need to call them fags or any other caustic term? I am not trying to be difficult here, but I truly want to understand why you do it. Do you not feel the least bit of conviction from the Lord? Do you feel any love toward the people who are in this awful stronghold or do you just feel contempt?
2004-12-16 23:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Scout]Please tell me, Walter, why you feel the need to call them fags or any other caustic term? I am not trying to be difficult here, but I truly want to understand why you do it. Do you not feel the least bit of conviction from the Lord? Do you feel any love toward the people who are in this awful stronghold or do you just feel contempt?[/QUOTE]
Not speaking for Walter... In general, homosexuals are deserving of contempt. Calling them "fags" is just a short and quick way to stress one's feelings of homosexuals. The only reason I would hesitate to use the word is when I'm not feeling so crude.
Calling a fag a "homosexual" or "gay" is dishonest. The term "homosexual" hardly begins to describe their perversion and depravity, but promotes the falsehood that fags are the same as heterosexuals except with a same-sex sexual orientation. The term "gay" is a blantant perversion of a good word to promote the miserable fag lifestyle. I would think any real Christian would feel conviction from th Lord for refering to what God says is detestable with an euphemism.
I'm sure there are people (I don't know of any) who struggle with homosexual lusts but which don't want to and are otherwise good people, but these are the exceptions. I wouldn't call these exceptions fags if they aren't embracing the homosexual lifestyle just like I wouldn't call a man a murderer just because he has homicidal feelings that he wishes he didn't have. And, if you are a murderer, you know you deserve to be called such.
What do you think of Jesus calling the Jewish priests "vipers"?
2004-12-17 00:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Not speaking for Walter... In general, homosexuals are deserving of contempt. Calling them "fags" is just a short and quick way to stress one's feelings of homosexuals. The only reason I would hesitate to use the word is when I'm not feeling so crude.
Calling a fag a "homosexual" or "gay" is dishonest. The term "homosexual" hardly begins to describe their perversion and depravity, but promotes the falsehood that fags are the same as heterosexuals except with a same-sex sexual orientation. The term "gay" is a blantant perversion of a good word to promote the miserable fag lifestyle. I would think any real Christian would feel conviction from th Lord for refering to what God says is detestable with an euphemism.
I'm sure there are people (I don't know of any) who struggle with homosexual lusts but which don't want to and are otherwise good people, but these are the exceptions. I wouldn't call these exceptions fags if they aren't embracing the homosexual lifestyle just like I wouldn't call a man a murderer just because he has homicidal feelings that he wishes he didn't have. And, if you are a murderer, you know you deserve to be called such.
What do you think of Jesus calling the Jewish priests "vipers"?[/QUOTE]I agree with you on the "gay" term. I refuse to use that word. I usually use homosexual because that is what they are, but I do see your point that it is really more than that; it is the perversion of their sexuality, though some of them are really decent people on a wordly level. I know some homosexuals who are much more kind and longsuffering than some of the Christians I have come up against and that is just wrong. IMVHO.
I understand what you are saying about how you feel. I am not sure that I can agree with you, though. (No offense by what I am about to say, it is just how it came off to me.) The reason I say that is because when I first happened upon one of the blogs that some of you are connected to, I thought it was a Christian bashing site with some gay bashing included. I was somewhat taken aback, but there were a few things in the body of the article that made me re-read it. I realized that it was a Christian who was disgusted with what was going on in "Christian" America. I agreed with their stance, but cringed at how the person seemed so vitriolic in the way they conveyed their disapproval.
I think that when someone speaks out against a subject they have more credibility if the approach it in a civil manner. At least that has been my experience. There are better ways to show contempt such as pointing out the cold hard facts and their ugly consequences. It appears more hateful than contemptuous to me to call a group of people names.
I have no problem with Jesus calling the priests vipers because they were. They were out and out hypocrites with virtually no love in their hearts, had perverted the Word of God and were utterly legalistic. They were deceiving the people of God.
edited to add: Jesus did not call the woman at the well a whore or a slut nor did he call the rest of the sinners names, but he did tell them the truth and told the woman to sin no more. Same with the woman caught in the act of adultery.
Thanks for giving me your point of view.
2004-12-17 03:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Please tell me, Walter, why you feel the need to call them fags or any other caustic term? I am not trying to be difficult here, but I truly want to understand why you do it. Do you not feel the least bit of conviction from the Lord? Do you feel any love toward the people who are in this awful stronghold or do you just feel contempt?[/QUOTE]
I don't mean the terms "fag" or "faggot" pejoratively at all.
Recall that "queer" used to be a very nasty term until homosexuals co-opted it, as in the "Queer Studies" programs now regnant in our best universities.
It's the same with "fag" and "faggot" - I'm merely co-opting the term for a more colloquial, general meaning.
Actually, while I'm at it, I use the word "Negra" in the same way. Hey, if blacks can call each other "nigger" in a friendly sort of way and to show a sort of informal regard for blacks, then I can use a derivative of it - Negra - for similar purposes.
Same for my use of the term "Yahoodi" in regard to Jews. I've heard Jewish colleagues refer to other Jews using the most charged epithets. If they can do it, so can I. No offense intended. Seriously. I wish everybody well.
Walter
2004-12-17 12:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker][/QUOTE]
Not to mentioned "whitened sepluchers."
2004-12-17 17:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I don't mean the terms "fag" or "faggot" pejoratively at all.
Recall that "queer" used to be a very nasty term until homosexuals co-opted it, as in the "Queer Studies" programs now regnant in our best universities.
It's the same with "fag" and "faggot" - I'm merely co-opting the term for a more colloquial, general meaning.
Actually, while I'm at it, I use the word "Negra" in the same way. Hey, if blacks can call each other "nigger" in a friendly sort of way and to show a sort of informal regard for blacks, then I can use a derivative of it - Negra - for similar purposes.
Same for my use of the term "Yahoodi" in regard to Jews. I've heard Jewish colleagues refer to other Jews using the most charged epithets. If they can do it, so can I. No offense intended. Seriously. I wish everybody well.
Walter[/QUOTE] Thanks for your explanation. Sounds like from what you have stated that you would have no problem using the terms were you speaking to Jesus face to face.
2004-12-17 21:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Scout]Thanks for your explanation. Sounds like from what you have stated that you would have no problem using the terms were you speaking to Jesus face to face.[/QUOTE]
Actually, your comment prompted me to think about it a bit more, and I think I see a problem with using the term "fag" or "faggot." That is, we can't condemn people for their feelings, only for their actions. If a person has same sex attraction disorder (SADS) then that's not his or her fault and compassion is in order. It's like condeming an alcoholic for pining after the bottle. I'd never condemn somebody for having a weakness, especially since I have a few myself.
We deal instead with actions only. We outlaw drinking and driving and public drunkeness, for example, and we even tried outlawing liquor, but we never tried outlawing the hankering after alcohol, and rightly so. The act of sodomy is the thing that must be condemned, banned, punished severely. But not people who have sexual feelings for the same sex simply because they have those feelings. Else we'd be getting into thought crime.
So, from here on out I will not use terms that might hurt the feelings of people who suffer from SADS. Instead I will only use terms that relate to the act only and not to feelings and thoughts alone.
From here on out, I will refer to male homosexual persons only as "homosexual" or "gay."
And I will from now on refer to those who choose to engage in the vomitous act of sodomy as "fudgepacker", "arse bandit", or "Hershey Highwayman."
And of course by the Biblical term "sodomite."
These terms focus on the overt act only, and not the subjective feelings of the individuals involved.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Thanks for setting me straight on this, Scout.
2004-12-18 22:33 | User Profile
vomitous act of sodomy...The act of sodomy is the thing that must be condemned, banned, punished severely. I could not agree with you more. The biblical punishment for the act would be just fine with me. :frown:
And I will from now on refer to those who choose to engage in the vomitous act of sodomy as "fudgepacker", "arse bandit", or "Hershey Highwayman."
Hey Walter, whichever terms you feel comfortable with were you speaking directly to Jesus about people with sin/overt sin in their lives, go for it. :heart:
Luke 18:10-14
2004-12-18 23:46 | User Profile
At first one home came to light and the US did nothing. Then another home came into the open and the US did nothing Then 100,000 came into the open and the US still did nothing Then 1'000,000 started to protest and they got away with it
Now there are 10'000,000 and the US "CAN'T" do anthing about it.
If in you mind you were to change the word homo for "illegal" you can read the same thing.
There is no chance in hell for the US ever to stop the illegals ever again.
Like it or not we are stuck with both of them as you are with me :angry:
Okie? how am I doing with my commas?