Below The Beltway

I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in.

Ken Cuccinelli: Homosexual “Acts” Are A Detriment To Our Culture

by @ 1:07 pm on March 20, 2010. Filed under Dumbasses, Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia, Virginia Politics

Here we go again:

 

Q: Do you think that gays — the practice of homosexuality — is a detriment to our culture?

CUCCINELLI: The acts are. You certainly want everybody in your society to be integrated into your society. So, that’s a focus I’d like to take, but there’s a distinction. And it’s one that the General Assembly seems to be wrestling with every year, and we’ll leave that one to them for now.

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

4 Responses to “Ken Cuccinelli: Homosexual “Acts” Are A Detriment To Our Culture”

  1. Well, Harvey Milk, let’s examine your implied assertion from the other direction:

    In what ways are homosexual behaviors CONSTRUCTIVE to society?

    So far, homosexuals have introduced AIDS into the general population, they account for the highest per capita rate of Hepatitis, and thanks to their Village People approach to multiple sex partners who are frequently from the so-called, African minus American community, we now are seeing a major outbreak of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA).

    For the uninformed, the crappy part of MRSA is that the ONLY treatment is to excise (cut-out) the infected tissue. MRSA lives for days on the surfaces where a carrier placed her/his bare skin. MRSA can only be killed on surfaces with the application of strong bleach. Luckily for White people, MRSA is mostly resident in African, and Latino communities. Unlucky for White people is that, thanks to homosexuals’ inter-racial liaisons (and the White girls who want to be like one of Tiger Woods’ White whores), MRSA is beginning to find its way into the White community.

    Setting aside the issue of the rapid spreading of diseases, some of which still have no cure, let’s look at the other “benefits” homosexuals bring to society:

    They generally dress neatly and keep their lawns mowed.

    The rest of society used to at least have some solace in that homosexuals voluntarily took themselves out of the gene pool. However, now with homo-adoption and artificial insemination (with cloning surely to soon become a regular practice) there is a real threat that those who carry a genetic predisposition to homosexuality (if it even exists) may begin to multiply perhaps even more frequently than the hetero population.

    So, what would more fags mean for America? Would we get well kept lawns populated by men who were neat, and women who dress like drag kings and smoke cigars? Or, will we get a population that is wracked by high rates of disease and disability? Nice lawns will not prevent the spread of disease; we saw that with the last AIDs epidemic.

    Feel free to add any community-specific positive attributes homosexuals bring to society. There may be more, like: With transsexual wives, Men will finally be able to have a quiet evening at home without incessant bitching and whining from their wives, since a TS would most likely know the value of quiet time at the end of a long day on the job, plus a TS wife would really like performing oral sex, whereas the typical American princess abhors getting on their knees for their Man, claiming that it is demeaning.

  2. I’ll ignore your personal insult, which couldn’t be further from the truth by the way to ask a simple question —– what business is it of yours what two adults do in private ?

  3. James Young says:

    Why is calling you “Harvey Milk” a personal insult?

  4. That OK, I didn’t think your were, you know…

    I just presumed that you were affecting a Harvey Milk type of persona to attack the Cooch, so I wanted you to follow through in true Harvey Milk fashion and lay-out all of the great contributions that homosexual acts bring forth for society, if indeed there are any.

    I have no doubt that the Cooch hates homosexuals, as do most of his Bible thumping, foaming at the mouth, evangelical brethren. It is fascinating as it is tragic, the way that so many self-professed, “Christians” are so frequently responsible for murdering and maiming homosexuals. Perhaps the most truly Christian approach to homosexuals that I have ever witnessed was made by the late, Reverend Jerry Falwell, who would talk about what the King James Bible said to condemn the practice of homosexuality, yet Rev. Falwell still welcomed homosexuals, including the maniacal “Act Up” group into his Thomas Road church.

    While Falwell was often maligned as being a kook, he set a proper example for the ethical treatment of those, such as homosexuals, who may not share the same beliefs as those in the evangelical community.

    Too many self anointed “Christian Leaders” imply or overtly encourage violence against homosexuals by members of their congregations.

    We need a lot more active discussions about the real risks associated with homosexual behaviors, as well as an honest assessment for upcoming generations as to the price one is likely to pay for electing to lead a homosexual lifestyle.

    I taught my own children not to be bigots toward homosexuals, but I also told them about the high risks for disease and early death that are common among our homosexual citizens.

    I am quite serious when I ask others to openly cite any positive aspects of leading a homosexual life. I think most people who are themselves homosexual, will most often say that they regret being homosexual. Some claim that they can’t help it, while others openly admit that they just like the easy access to sex.

    We needn’t act like homosexuals are great assets to society, when they clearly are not, yet at the same time we must not give tacit approval for violence against homosexuals. Preachers wouldn’t get any traction with their flocks if they tried to persuade them to go out and kill the alcoholics, or the adulterers (their congregants would wipe themselves out) so neither is there any logic for religious leaders to preach hatred of, and violence against, the homosexuals.

    Cuccinelli is right to point out the real problems associated with homosexual behavior, but he needs to also take a strong stand against violence against our homosexual neighbors, and follow Falwell’s example of, condemn the act but love the sinner. It is the REAL Christian thing to do.

[Below The Beltway is proudly powered by WordPress.]