Monday, March 31, 2008


It's a shame that we live in an X-rated world anymore --such that parents have to stand over the TV and find ways to filter that and the internet --and have to watch when we go to Disney that it's not "gay days" and have to be careful about when and where we go lest we run into a gay pride parade with people behaving obscenely --all because unwholesome things are being demonstrated and promoted that should not be viewed by children.

Should the porn purveyor or the gay activist, either one, have the right to flood the world with the obscene --such that children are exposed to it because there are no restrictions --and no self-restraint by people who care only about their own desires and tastes --rather than what is good for children?

Activists say, "Who's to say what is good for children?" Hopefully, enough good parents will rise up to say and prevent the complete public licentiousness that the so-called free speech champions are willing to see, justifying their right to wrongs on the basis that none can decide what is moral for society or for children.

Instead, we ought to make sure that "adult entertainment" is not accessible on TV, radios, phones, internet, strip joints and streets. Use heavy fines, blocking,etc. to shove the obscene back into the closet where the innocent cannot be caught unaware and corrupted, lured into a sex addiction. In fact, what a way to get gov't. revenue!

There has always been sleaze --but it was limited and restricted to certain areas of town where decent citizens could avoid it--where the really determined and jaded would have to seek it out. Folks attempting to live moral lives ought not be confronted with the X-rated fare in their neighborhoods and homes or on outings with the kids --and not in schools either --as in college "porn and sexuality studies."

The best remedy, of course, would be for people to stop buying or watching the indecent --but more and more of our citizens are proving to be "weaker brethren," easily stumbled by prurient interests. Woe unto the nation that won't restrain people's evil impulses. I'm not wishing woe upon us; I'm fearing it. I think many of our national problems, the escalating violence and immorality, the family breakdown, are results of our loss of biblical faith. As for the natural disasters, these may be allowed by God to get our attention back where it belongs --on our dependence on Him. We have been blessed for so long in the USA that we thought it was all our own doing.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible


steve said...

Do you think that we should have "immorality patrols" like they do in Iran? Something like that an immorality police would certainly put the kibosh on any kind of Gay parades and other hokey uncleanliness's. A good beating or hanging by the patrol of parade organizers would go a long way toward stopping these licentious and subversive activities- and our vital bodily fluids will avoid contamination.

These fagboys learned the hard way that buttsex is not to be tolerated:

Barb said...

No body has a right to just stop traffic for parades. They have to get permission for parades and close off streets, etc. So why should the KKK or the NAMBLA boys get to hold parades?

Watch your language, Steve. Your mom might look over here!

Too many boys have learned that the wages of sin is death -and they get lured by deceptive agenda of homosexuals and their own orgasm-focused temptation.

By having parades for homosex, we are misleading the culture into thinking that the lifestyle isn't the most unnecessarily diseased by avoidable sex practices in the world.

Give us one generation of chastity and we wipe out AIDS in our lifetime. THAT's the subject of a parade and agenda we should be having.

Barb said...

Or what if we followed up the Gay Pride parades with the Chastity Parades --on the tailend of the other --same day. They'd call it hate speech and be furious. But if they have their constitutional right to free speech via indecent acts in their parades --we ought to be able to parade a bunch of skeletons by to show the real wages of homosex.

Barb said...

BTW, you know I'm not suggesting any such "immorality patrols" --we already are supposed to prosecute public indecency and kiddie porn --we ought to really do it --and make porn manufacture of any kind illegal. IT's the biggest business on the internet.

Just because something is hard to control, doesn't mean we ought not try. E.G. the standards of what can be shown on tv have dramatically lowered --just because of lax enforcement of existing standards --and lax courts, too, probably.

steve said...

I've never even seen a Gay Parade. They don't have them in Toledo for sure, and the one in San Francisco.. well isn't that entire city supposedly gay? I think the ones organizing the gay parades probably aren't even truly gay but are "metrosexuals". You know trendy gays. I think true homosexuals are that way from birth due to genetic or epigenetic mutation. But anyway, here's another gay boy that learned the hardway after his nancyboy shinanigans... "don't mess with texas! or I mean the Sharia council" The Jokes on you Nancyboy.

Jeanette said...

The question should be why does anyone, gay or straight, have to parade and announce it to the world?

I don't parade my heterosexual lifestyle in front of people in the streets and can't for the life of me figure out why they do it.

If they want to be gay then let them have at it. But as I told my granddaughter about a punishment I meted out the other evening, you have to be prepared to take the consequences for your actions.

Barb said...

I don't think there are any genetically determined homosexuals --there is no evidence of this. It was announced and later debunked when a gay researcher made the claim of finding a gay marker in gays' genes --but his work was found to be faudulent. Besides, to be genetic, identical twins would be the same orientation--but when one of them is gay, it is usually only the one.

The idea of same sex admiration and involvement occurs and then it is accepted and entertained --or the act occurs and the participant's self-image is affected. It's a wrong thought first, followed by action--(or preceded by action in the case of a victim of molestation) --and it affects self-image. as parenting and peers do also. And self-image also affects orientation. Many roads lead to rome in the case of homosexual orientation and identity --but not genes. Not so far. Everything should be done to help children identify and behave and orient heterosexually. Like any other mental disorder.

Yankee Doodle said...

Of course there aren't genetically determined homosexuals. If the evolution theory is true, then why hasn't natural selection wiped out those who don't reproduce?

Barb said...


steve said...

"If the evolution theory is true, then why hasn't natural selection wiped out those who don't reproduce?"

Because the homosexual genetic disposition is a probably a very regressive anomoly. So the genetic phenotype of gayness hasn't been evolutionarily expunged by natural selection as you say. Your faulty logic doodle would mean that dead end phenotypes such as trisomy 21 (down syndrome) would be evolutionarily expunged, yet a short bus just passed me by on the way to work this morning.

But discounting all that fancy scientific talk, just use your "gaydar" man. Gay people have certain facial features, and bone structures that are unique, that give them away. I don't know why God allowed, or injected gayness into the genotype, but it is there.

Maybe gayness is a bridge to help intolerant homophobes overcome their burdon of hate.

Barb said...

Do homosexuals agree with your gaydar
descriptions? I doubt it.

I don't agree. There is no scientific study alleging that you can spot a gay by looking at his facial features, is there??

For me, my gaydar goes off seeing a look in the eye --it's not genetic.

effeminate speech and mannerisms make us suspect homosexual orientation. Especially when it's so "put on." so theatrical. We know gays who can put it on and off . It has so much more to do with self-image --and youthful experiences --and admiration for the ideal persons and features of one's own sex. It's self-indulgent theatrics that tip one off with some who are more flaming. It's the self-absorption.

And then it's the self-indulgent lust and pursuit --and the almost mysogenist lack of interest in women's touch, women's bodies --or wanting to be women.

A bisexual is truly the more honest of the two. He can go either direction for his jollies. The homosexual prefers his own and disdains the opposite sex -- he doesn't think girls are attractive --but like his mother --that's the problem. And if he has entered into the activities, THAT'S the PROBLEM! Caps.

Barb said...

By honest --I mean the bisexual just wants orgasm. The homosexual does, also, but he also hates intimacy with a woman, possibly in some cases because he hated women --or over identified with Mom and loves women as though he is one --and wants to be one, too. And/or craves men because he didn't have a close relationship with his father.

And some get into homosex simply through youthful indulgence --uninhibited hanky panky with other men. And this can affect self-image. Gays used to say on talk shows they could make any man gay--(because they knew it was about the activities more than anything.) They've quit publically taunting straights that way --realizing the implications, I suspect. The implication that it's the activities and nothing much more.

Take drugs. who can imagine that people would get addicted to a chemically induced euphoria/stimulation. In the case of homosex, they are addicted to the orgasms that are like drugs in their changes in the brain --short-circuiting interest and pleasure in normal stimulation, normal pleasures.

It's a Satanic thing --that God allowed in our make up --like the wages of sin --the trap of sin indulgence --the bondage of sin.

We need to be set "free" by the transforming power of Jesus.

steve said...

That's a lot of Oprah sounding speculative psychology -About as definitive as men become gay because of the unhealthy influence of Barry Manilow and Barbera Streisand.

I have to admit that I don't know anything about gays, or their lifestyle, it doesn't interest me in the least. I just know that I can spot them, not because of the way they dress or their mannorerisms, but because they have a certain physiological presentation that is unmistakable (true gays that is, not trendy gays). The only thing I know is that the most successful communities are those that are the most tolerant. God and Jesus love gays, so that's good enough for me, and the bible says "Judge not, lest ye be judged", so I avoid judging.

Le Raccordement Français said...

Elle est complètement folle et doit être une obséddée sexuelle refoulée car elle n’a probablement jamais joui puisque pour elle, la seule raison de faire l’amour c’est de faire des fétus. C’est écrit dans sa bible que le sexe c’est pire que le meurtre.

steve said...

One word Frenchy: Freedom Fries.. er 2 words...

Barb said...

Here is a dictionary translation of the French paragraph:

It is completely insane and must be one obséddée sexual driven back because it probably never enjoyed since for it, the only reason to make love is to make straws. It is written in its bible which the sex it is worse than the murder.

Talk about insane! LOL

After so much of this in the French blog, there won't be any more Eng.-only Americans participating.

Barb said...

I followed the french contributor's link --and it went to the French blog --where I found that Woman of Marseille took my post on "why I participate on the French blog" and I guess she put it in the translator --or tried to copy it over. Because It's REALLY REALLY FUNNY!

E.G. She quotes me saying about Romeo:

"It would always flirt with the single girls, professing to be one himself." [No,I said HE (Romeo) would flirt with the single girls professing to be single himself. LOL! ]

No way to progress in mutual understanding with such translations.

Barb said...

Yes, I speculate as to psychological reasons why someone would end up with GID (gender identity disorder) or homosexual preference.

As for Oprah, she and I didn't come to the same conclusions. I think we parents have a lot to do with orientation and sexual identity --she thought it was all genes.

but your comment on appearance is unique to you, isn't it? The gays I know share nothing in appearance except metrosexual fashions-- I think they may have started the unshaved, scruffy, 5-o'clock shadow look. I do think their self-image shows on their countenances.

There are psychologists who do say what I do about the formation of homosexual self-image --and the various roads to that orientation.

In my opinion, there is no denying that the idea to be homosexual came before being one --and the idea was not rejected --and could've been --just like adultery or pedophilia or incest.

Jeanette said...

People have sex to make straws???
Gosh, Barb, are you kinky? LOL

Just making fun of the French translation in that statement.

Barb said...

Yeah, don't tell anyone about my straw making view of sex. Shhhhh!

steve said...

Oh my -chuckles- You are a DELIGHT!