ÐHwww.dakotavoice.com/2008/09/pro-homosexual-propaganda-working.htmlC:/Documents and Settings/Bob Ellis/My Documents/Websites/Dakota Voice Blog 20081230/www.dakotavoice.com/2008/09/pro-homosexual-propaganda-working.htmldelayedwww.dakotavoice.com/\sck.c9ixuO[IÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÈøß3 3•OKtext/htmlUTF-8gzipÀ¹à3•ÿÿÿÿJ}/yWed, 31 Dec 2008 09:15:23 GMT"d535d317-f59f-44fb-a962-f2fd2b83e6af"‹2Mozilla/4.5 (compatible; HTTrack 3.0x; Windows 98)en, en, *rO[Iÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿb}3• Dakota Voice: Pro-Homosexual Propaganda Working

Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Pro-Homosexual Propaganda Working

From CitizenLink: Many young Americans say homosexual "marriage" should be legal.

Posted by Bob Ellis at 7:59 PM

Labels: ,

| Digg It | Stumble It | Reddit | | Yahoo Bookmark | Facebook |

16 comments:

alexh2007 said...

Bob,

I think you'll agree that no matter how many articles you write, how many prayers you say, how many fast-food chains you boycott, and how many anti-gay amendments you vote for, homosexuals are not going anywhere. Gay people will keep having relationships with their own gender no matter what you do, and they will never stop wanting rights and benefits for those relationships. It's fair to assume that you won't argue any of these points.

Now, please explain the logic behind this: you spend your days writing countless articles decrying the sad state of the gay community - the promiscuity, drug abuse, depression, disease, instability, yadda yadda yadda. Yet when monogamous gay couples desire legal recognition and social acceptance, you won't give it to them. You complain that homosexuals are too promiscuous while denying them any incentive or encouragement to be monogamous! How does that make any sense?

Keeping in mind the premise that you are fully aware of homosexuals' permanent presence in society, your solution is simply to ignore them. You pretend to care by sympathizing and offering "help," but let's face it, you really just want gay people to shut up and disappear. Guess what - that will never happen. Ever. I'm not saying this in defiance or as a scare tactic; it's a fact. So maybe you should accept this reality and rethink your goals, because the way things are going, you are failing miserably.


Also, is there any chance you might respond to a comment I posted a few weeks ago?

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/08/homosexual-action-fund-energized-to.html

9/17/2008 10:30 AM
Bob Ellis said...

Homosexuals have been around for thousands of years--almost as long as humanity. The truth has also been around even longer, and it's the truth I'll stick with.

Do pastors give up when people choose sin over God? Do cops throw in the towel when crime increases? Do soldiers give up when the enemy is winning?

Currently, our society has lost it's way, abandoned truth and sanity. That doesn't diminish my obligation to speak the truth to a culture gone bad; not in the slightest. Even if the people in our culture don't acknowledge their error and repent before the bill comes due, sometime after the bill does come due, people will see the error of a hedonistic culture and such behavior will diminish. Either way, my obligation to speak the truth doesn't change or diminish.

Legal recognition and acceptance won't change these risk factors in the homosexual community because these risk factors don't arise from lack of legal recognition or acceptance. Places where legal recognition and acceptance still see high rates of disease, substance abuse...and yes, a continued high rate of promiscuity and low rate of monogamy. These unhealthy consequences arise because the practice itself violates good health, and it also strains the conscience so much that mental and emotional stress occur. The only thing that can end that is to stop the immoral and unhealthy practice and start living right.

There are 24 comments to that post; to what would you like a response that hasn't already been given?

9/17/2008 12:31 PM
alexh2007 said...

So that's your message? Deny gay people incentives to be monogamous, complain when they're promiscuous, and in the meantime, hope and pray that they'll all give up part of who they are and start living the "right" way...even though you know they won't? You call this an obligation to the truth? I call it a tragic waste of time.


As for which comment I was referring to, well, I'm no detective, but it's probably not comments #22-24. Maybe it's the one right before those, the long one from 9/1 that someone named Gabarus was referring to when he said, "I find it a shame that Bob never replied to this one," and the one I was referring to when I said, "I've been waiting for Bob to respond." Did you even READ it?

9/17/2008 2:28 PM
Bob Ellis said...

Homosexuals already have plenty of incentives to be monogamous: it's safer, more emotionally satisfying, and exhibits a higher degree of integrity. Yet most choose not to, regardless of their commitment level and any legal recognition.

As with alcohol abuse, drug abuse, gambling and many other destructive lifestyles, people frequently leave homosexuality behind. Others stay with the destructive behavior. The call to leave the destructive behavior remains just as valid, no matter how many heed the call. Truth isn't relative.

If you want me to respond to a specific inquiry, please be more specific. You droned on quite a bit there with the comment you seem to be honing in on, without a clear interrogative. It can be tiresome responding to the same flawed logic (dressed up with slightly different garnish each time) and repeating the same truth (which is continually rejected) over and over.

9/17/2008 5:14 PM
alexh2007 said...

My, you really are unwilling to reply to that comment, aren't you? I've written much longer posts than the one in question, ones that were far more off topic, and yet you deigned to respond to those, so why not this one?

In case it's still unclear, the comment I'm referring to is the fourth from the bottom, written by me at 1:35am on 9/1. You'll notice that several of my sentences end with punctuation commonly known as a "question mark," indicating that a response is desired. If you get confused as to what my specific inquiries are, just look for the curvy lines with the dots underneath.

9/17/2008 6:18 PM
Bob Ellis said...

Since you've made such an issue of it here, why don't you go ahead and ask those questions here clearly and concisely and save me the trouble of wading through your novel there? Otherwise you can keep waiting for an answer.

9/17/2008 6:56 PM
alexh2007 said...

Wow. So that's your job as the editor of a blog? To insult a reader's comment by calling it a novel, and then lazily sit back and wait for him to dumb it down for you rather than spend two minutes reading and figuring it out for yourself? And yet whenever I ask you to cite your sources or quote something, you tell me I shouldn't have to be spoonfed information? Amazing.

I'm starting to think it isn't by choice that you don't get an income as editor. You'd be hard pressed to find someone dumb enough to actually pay you for this, even in South Dakota.

9/17/2008 9:06 PM
Bob Ellis said...

Insulting the editor is not a wise strategy for getting your question answered, Alex.

Given the history of exchange you and I have shared over recent months, I think some would question my sanity for even responding to your interrogatives. I love to dialog with people who are willing to accept facts and logic, but I find it tiresome to debate with people who are only interested in finding excuses, however thin, to excuse immoral behavior.

I don't respond to every comment left here on any given day, much less to someone who's shown that no matter what evidence I provide, it will be summarily rejected.

9/17/2008 9:11 PM
alexh2007 said...

Since I've been coming to this site, I have tried asking you questions in every possible tone. Yet whenever I challenge your logic or ask you to provide evidence, I end up with, "Well, I guess that's all she wrote. Goodnight!"

And don't worry. As someone who believes in talking snakes and drinks wine (or I guess grape juice; wouldn't want a relapse) that he pretends is the blood of the undead Messiah, your sanity is already in question by anyone too polite to laugh at you. Political correctness is the only thing keeping you out of a straitjacket.

9/17/2008 9:28 PM
Bob Ellis said...

I don't pretend to drink the blood of the Messiah. :-)

9/18/2008 5:48 AM
alexh2007 said...

Oh, my bad. I guess believing in talking snakes is ok, but pretending to drink someone's blood is just plain crazy!

9/18/2008 10:30 AM
Bob Ellis said...

Like I've said before, if Genesis 1:1 is true, the rest of the Bible is gravy for God--including raising people from the dead and talking snakes.

9/18/2008 5:26 PM
alexh2007 said...

You're spending all this time defending your sanity, but somehow looking through a post to answer two or three questions is a chore.

9/19/2008 9:53 AM
Bob Ellis said...

I might be more willing to expend the effort if I had some reasonable expectation that a good and logical answer might be accepted.

9/19/2008 12:19 PM
alexh2007 said...

Of course I'll accept a good and logical answer! Now, as for your ability to GIVE one...

9/19/2008 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...

It's rather simple Alex. He doesn't answer the questions you ask, because he doesn't have any real answers for them. All he has is rhetoric, doublespeak, and "research" that he never seems willing to cite. Arguing with folks like ol' Bob here is rather useless. Don't worry, he's truly evil, but eventually, he'll die, and his hate will die with him.

Peace Alex!

10/08/2008 10:38 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
 
Clicky Web Analytics