doublegunshop.com - home Forums Duck Dynasty

Wow, I went flintlock deer hunting yesterday and came back to find an additional 10 pages of posts on this subject. It's a bit disturbing that the Second Amendment Informational thread is only 24 pages and this is already up to 27.

I still think homosexuality is a defect or learned trait, and not an inherited trait. If it was genetic, they would have long ago disappeared via natural selection, having removed themselves from the gene pool. As such, I strongly feel that it is wrong of the Libtards and PC idiots to force-feed us and our children this lifestyle. Even if it is an act between two consenting adults and hurts no one, it should not ever be seen by impressionable children... just on the supposition that it may be a learned trait.

But... it is entirely incorrect to say this lifestyle hurts no-one. HIV, hepatitus C, rectal cancer, etc. became epidemic as a result of this abberant lifestyle. I certainly realize that all of the above can be acquired by heterosexuals, but it was promiscuous homosexuals who were the rat in the present day plague. Even the overwhelming spread of heterosexual AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa can be linked to homosexual transmission in the early days of the outbreak. From there, it was prostitution, which is more behavior between consenting adults which supposedly hurts no-one. And that is why it became such a heterosexual threat here, via bisexuality and blood transfusions. Now, with many corporations providing medical benefits for same sex couples, insurance costs are increasing for everyone to cover the very expensive protease inhibitors that keep HIV positive gays alive and healthy so that they can spread even more virus before they expire.

I think Mike makes an excellent point when he says that Polygamist Mormons or Muslims may have the same "right" to practice their behavior between consenting adults. If corporations must provide coverage to same sex couples, how about co-habitating heterosexuals? Where does it end? At least those unions would result in children, who would become taxpayers and contribute to Social Security. I think that was the basis for the lower income tax rate for married couples.

Quick comment on suing the Catholic Church, or Episcopals, or Boy Scouts, or Penn State, or Exxon, or BP, etc. into oblivion because of the criminal actions of one or a few. To me, that is a load of legal crap which punishes thousands of innocents for the criminal acts of a few, and enriches lawyers. Punish those guilty of the crime. Punish and confiscate the assets of anyone who engages in any attempt to cover up the crimes. Pedophiles, for example, should be publicly ground up alive and used for bone and blood meal fertilizer. This should deter other pedophiles from acting on their urges, and will insure no recidivism. Confiscate their assets and give it all to the victims with no cut for any law firm. Period!

J.R.B., did you at least get their names? I'm guessing nca225 and homer.

I think they are still picking the splinters out of their ass from the fence post JRB sat them on as a result of whatever they did back then.

Doc I think their argument is that putting up Christian symbols in public settings is to establish Christianity as the official religion.

As far as a right to "freedom from religion" I would object if the police (or FBI) were out rounding up backsliding Christians on Sunday and then giving them the choice of attending church or going to jail.

Tax dollars are going to pay people to stay home on CHRISTIAN holidays instead of working, they aren't getting Hindu, Muslim..Bhudist, Wicca, Santaria, etc holidays?.....far more is spent doing that than on any display that the majority of Americans would enjoy.

If you see the point I'm getting at.......whining about a CHristmas tree on public ground is hypocricy when public officials are getting paid time off for those same holidays to celibrate them.

I don't think the atheists object to the expense of the display but to the expression of Christianity on public property.

Good point about government observance of Christian holidays. Probably that practice is in the atheists gunsights too.

If religion is a belief system based on faith then so is atheism. So it would seem that lack of religious symbols on public grounds is just as much an expression of religion as having Christian displays.

I don't think the average atheist would insist on working on a holiday...without premium pay. But they will graciously accept money to sit at home on a holiday they refuse to acknowledge themselves.

In a a sense since most of them are hypocrits I doubt they would go after what ammounts to a free handout (paid religious holidays) they themselves benifit from.

Mike....I'm still perplexed.

Oops, missed the question the first time. I don't know, maybe a male child was molested by a male pedophile over and over. Males became the gender that stimulated him.

Back in seventh grade my girl friend and I went to the movie theater together. We sat in the balcony by ourselves. Just a little bit of kissing and groping and ever since I have been addicted to vaginas.

Keith, welcome back. Hope you had success with the flintlock.

Pretty sure all of us here don't like the force feeding of "alternate" lifestyles, whether to adults or children.

If you are arguing that homosexual behavior should be outlawed on the basis of harm and health care costs, I'd say you then need to include smoking, drinking, processed and fast foods, obesity and slothfulness, just for good measure.

And plenty of leaders of the Church did their best to turn a blind eye or actually cover up the harm. We all know that now. So should your Church take your prescribed medicine?