Gays shouldn't touch bibles

[Sauron]

That's what the AFA thinks, among other things:

Late last week, USA Today stated that the Republican Party is facing what it calls an "identity crisis" when it comes to efforts to try to please both homosexuals and conservative Christians. The report used a ceremony at the State Department to provide a very pointed example of how the GOP seems to want the support of "values voters," but are willing to appease the homosexual activist agenda.
[...]
"We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," says Sprigg. "But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner's family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing."
[...]
Dybul, who was confirmed by the Senate two months ago but was just sworn in due to scheduling conflicts with Secretary Rice and Mrs. Bush, is the nation's third openly homosexual ambassador. The other two no longer hold their positions. According to news reports, in all three cases the men's homosexual partners held the Bible on which the oath of office was sworn.

[erimir]

Dirty Homersexuals, with their love of all things Homer.

[godfry n. glad]

Hmmm... Just to note that I wouldn't swear on any bible, and I'm not gay. I think it would be better to affirm upon a facsimile of the Constitution.

[Plant Woman]

Why is anyone offended? Rice didn't call anyone bad names.

And how does one get that a gay person is the fox when it comes to being in charge of aid's policy?

And why in the world would an almighty being care if a gay person touched a bible or not? If it did care as much as these people shout about, and is reported to be so almighty, it could do something about it. Obviously it could care less. They must think the gays will leave cooties on the bible or something.

Who's really the offensive people in this story?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Plant Woman

Why is anyone offended? Rice didn't call anyone bad names.

I don't think anyone called anyone else names. ???

And how does one get that a gay person is the fox when it comes to being in charge of aid's policy?

This is, I presume, because they prefer total incompetents in charge of federal programs...y'know? Like "Brownie".

And why in the world would an almighty being care if a gay person touched a bible or not? If it did care as much as these people shout about, and is reported to be so almighty, it could do something about it. Obviously it could care less. They must think the gays will leave cooties on the bible or something.

But of course! Gay cooties on the Bible! I didn't even think of that.

I thought it was probably more that they thought that it was a violation of some kind of promise Dumbya had made to the homosexual-hating fundamentalist whack jobs. Like any politician, he reneged on their "understanding" by appointing a flamer and then making it a photo op with the First Hubby. For shame...cavorting with homosexuals!

Who's really the offensive people in this story?

I think that's for everyone to decide for themselves. I know I have.

[Plant Woman]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I don't think anyone called anyone else names. ???

Exactly, calling a gay partner's mother an in-law is not offensive to anyone. Which is what I believe they were taking offense to. I could be wrong though.

This is, I presume, because they prefer total incompetents in charge

Oh, you know that probably was a good move, as the fox is smart and may just get something done. A lot of catching up to do, since the party was too busy in contra scandels and presidents forgetting things to even bother about the epidemic that was happening. I wonder how many people would be alive today, had they taken this disease seriously back then instead of ignoring it as it was a gay problem?

Oh shit, I hate those memories of that soulless party; they have a lot of blood on their hands.

I think that's for everyone to decide for themselves. I know I have.

So have I.

[Ensign Steve]

At first I thought the title of this thread read, "Gays should't touch babies."