Gay Patriot Header Image

Sarah Palin on her gay friend

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

Over at her blog, Lloydletta’s Nooz and Comments, Eva Young alerts us to a video of Sarah Palin commenting on her attitudes toward homosexuality:

While I disagree with the Alaska Governor’s contention that her friend “made a choice” to be gay, I’m pleased that we have yet another piece of video showing Palin saying that she doesn’t judge people because they are gay. She has remained friends with a woman even after learning of her lesbianism.

These remarks are consistent with her past statements on homosexuality.

Importantly, she doesn’t define her friend by her sexuality: “She’s not my gay friend, she is one of my best friends.” That’s how I hope my straight friends see me.  How we all should hope our straight friends see us.

This seems in fitting with the “live and let live” spirit of Alaska, something I’d like to see become increasingly regnant in the Republican Party. With the prominence of John McCain and Sarah Palin in the GOP, that seems to be becoming increasingly likely.

We know how John McCain treats friends and colleagues when he learns they’re gay. His running mate has the same attitude.

UPDATE from Bruce (GayPatriot): Dan, I never watch any of the network news programs, but oddly happened to change channels just as this clip was being aired. My take immediately was that her friend had the choice to “come out” and that she admired her friend for doing so. But that’s just my impression of her comments.

UP-UPDATE (from Dan): Good point, Bruce. We do make a choice in coming out.



  1. When ‘folk’ know ‘gay folk’ it is hard to say negative things. After acknowledging her ‘best friend’ Palin is showing her heart. Palin was brought in to stir the conservative voters, to rally support for the McCain campaign. With the past revelation of Mark Buse, it is coming closer to a reality to a time when the GOP will stop relying on the bigots and narrow-minded folk for support. Even the acknowledgement of the LCR at the GOP convention is a big step. When Dick and Lynne Cheney welcomed their grand child, and Mary and Heather. . . well it was a grand time to open up more conversations amongst conservatives to recognize close family members and friends. (mary is opposing the gay marriage ban in California).

    As a ‘recovering Catholic’ I value the Church and the people I call friends in the church and yet I am still conflicted with many of the ‘teachings of the church.’ Palin may like certain aspects of her church and its community, but she could also be someone who also has conflicts with some of the teachings.

    When gays, lesbians, and the other folk of the sexual minority community come out, their is less fear and rejection by friends and family. Most people who have someone come out to them are often times shocked by the reality that there seemed to be a lack of trust in the relationship, not the issue of sexual orientation. Hiding, lying and deception are not healthy in any relationship.

    Comment by rusty — October 1, 2008 @ 2:12 pm - October 1, 2008

  2. “McCain openly favors legalized discrimination against gays on the basis of their sexuality: isn’t that contrary to what conservatives demand?”

    Conservatives do not demand that anyone be allowed to get married, everyone be guaranteed a job, everyone be allowed to adopt a child, and that everyone should automatically serve in the armed forces. Conservatives support logical reasons and rational evaluation of the effects on others for people being allowed to do all of the above.

    For example, women are not required to share sleeping quarters with men in the armed forces except under extreme circumstances, the reason being that sexual attraction may exist and that its existence creates sexual tension and interferes with unit cohesion. That is “legalized discrimination”, and it makes perfect sense. Similarly, straight people should not be required to share sleeping quarters with people who may be sexually attracted to them, especially given gay and lesbian liberals’ insistence that holding gays and lesbians responsible for sexual harassment is “homophobia and sexism”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2008 @ 2:22 pm - October 1, 2008

  3. 33, of course there’s a method to tell who’s gay and who isn’t and you don’t need to be a psychiatrist or psychologist to figure it out. Here’s how you do it: Go up to the person suspect is gay and bark out “CLANK! CLANK! CLANK!” If they immediately respond with “WENT THE TROLLEY,” then they are irrefutably gay!

    Comment by Right Turn — October 1, 2008 @ 2:31 pm - October 1, 2008

  4. […] tolerance of free speech! We’re going to demand for accountability from the Democrats and even be fair once in a […]

    Pingback by GOP: Hail Mary Pass or Go Home | The Anchoress — October 1, 2008 @ 2:35 pm - October 1, 2008

  5. WhatAboutPalinsReligion, many conservative Christians (including myself and probably including SP) have a fairly nuanced view of homosexuality. We think there’s room in the middle between, say, James Dobson and Gene Robinson with regard to the religious or moral questions surrounding homosexuality. We don’t expect to make the majority of gay Americans happy with our beliefs regarding homosexuality, but there are many people to the right of us whom we don’t agree with, both in tone and substance, and even if we can’t condone homosexual acts and be honest about it, we don’t see it as our job to condemn either. After all, we have a lot of our own sin issues to deal with. And even if it would go against SP’s religion to condone homosexuality, it would probably also go against her beliefs to be anywhere near as hostile and judgmental as many Christians have been. One should not assume that the old guard of the religious right speak for the church in general, or even conservative churches in general. Presumably, SP doesn’t believe, as a vocal minority seem to believe, that homosexuality is the most dangerous threat to America’s culture. I would imagine she chooses not to dwell on the moral questions surrounding homosexuality. Basically, she sees the fruit of her friendship as more important than pressuring her friend to change or otherwise making her friend uncomfortable. As a conservative Christian myself with gay friends, I know exactly what she’s talking about when she talks about her friend.

    Comment by cme — October 1, 2008 @ 3:22 pm - October 1, 2008

  6. 35 –
    It’s clang clang clang
    Guess that proves you’re gay.

    Comment by Left Turn — October 1, 2008 @ 3:32 pm - October 1, 2008

  7. Palin said she believes being gay is a choice. I’m not sure why that’s confusing.

    She didn’t say coming out was a choice, she literally said being gay was her friend’s choice. And that language, in this day and age, is HILARIOUS!

    Listen, I know conservatives pretend they understand there’s supposed to be separation between church and State, but I also know a lot of them simply can’t do it. It’s impossible to bypass your faith. I know that. I respect that. But when you begin to rationalize Palin’s direct comments, you really need to look at what’s going on for you. Especially if you’re gay. That’s…well….sad.

    Also know folks, gay marriage will happen. Trust me. It will happen. America is founded on change and freedom, and that’s what we’re talking about. No one’s talking about marrying their Ford Escort or their pet turtle. Which by the way, is another HILARIOUS argument. Its’ about one person being in a monogamous relationship with another person. That’s all.

    I know it’s scary Folks, but really, you’re going to be okay. You really, really will. And truly know that the only choice thats going on here is yours. The choice to stop Americans from uniting with other Americans in a loving relationship, and that choice will go down in history as archaic and misguided.

    And just for some info….marriage hasn’t been between a man and a woman for the last 5,000 years. Women used to be traded as property to men, men also garnered several wives at one time…the list goes on. Marriage hasn’t always been about love and respect. Just a short history lesson.

    Keep smiling!

    Comment by Alexandra — October 1, 2008 @ 3:55 pm - October 1, 2008

  8. Dave (#6), I’ve driven some BMWs that I’ve wanted to marry. hehehehe If only it could cook and clean my apartment.

    Comment by OutliciousTV — October 1, 2008 @ 4:17 pm - October 1, 2008

  9. WhataboutPalinsReligion (#25), from first hand experience, I can tell you it doesn’t conflict with her religion. I, with my family, attended Assembly of God churches from the time I was 5 or 6 years old until I graduated college and left home. While they aren’t afraid to call you out on what they see as being a sin, the teaching is that you love the sinner and hate the sin. My coming out to my family wasn’t easy but at no time did they ever threaten to disown me. Since my coming out, my mom has become something of a fag hag…not that I ever plan on taking her to a gay bar (Lord knows I can barely stand them) but she has two friends where she works, one a young gay guy and the other a partnered lesbian who she hangs out without any problem. If you ask my mom or most of the rest of my family, my partner and I aren’t going to make it into Heaven but in the meantime, she’s going to enjoy our company.

    Comment by BrentinMSP — October 1, 2008 @ 4:53 pm - October 1, 2008

  10. a must see. . .

    when folk start getting to know ‘gay folk’ things start changing. Palin is hsowing her heart. Even though she might have not have expressed herself as well as she could have, she is at least talking about her ‘best friend.’ Palin was introduced to rally the conservative folk in the GOP. She was brought in to bring in some new energy.
    Seems like things are a changing, with the revelation of Mark Buse, as a trusted friend and confidant of McCain, the ever changing attitudes that came with the announcement of Lynne and Dick Cheney’s grandson and the openness of Mary and Heather. ( Mary is on record in opposing Prop 8).

    People welcome friends and family when they ‘come out.’ Often times it is the feeling of not being trusted enough that causes stress to loved ones when someone comes out. Distrust, lies, deception and dishonesty do not make for healthy relationships.

    Strides are being made in the GOP with the acceptance of the LCR endorsement at the convention, Republicans voices their opposition to Prop 8 and the other anti-gay ammendments and with conversations happening in conversative families regarding their gay/lesbian families and friends.

    Coming out is not a one time event. . .it happens over and over and over. and it becomes easier.

    Comment by rusty — October 1, 2008 @ 5:04 pm - October 1, 2008

  11. I saw the clip as well and just felt as though she {Palin} acknowledged that we all have “choices” that we make…I “chose” to take the path that resonated the best for me which was to date women…I could have “chosen” a very different path however having already been down that particular path it really did not suit me…so IMHO what SArah said is correct and her friend did “chose” to be gay {happy} and to has chosen to honor that which resonates the best for her….

    So anyone know where i can my LGBT for McCain/Palin bumper sticker?

    Comment by left leaning lesbian friend — October 1, 2008 @ 5:05 pm - October 1, 2008

  12. I notice in your linking of the bill you left out the part where it says,
    “(2) All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”
    My God. RTFM, my friend.
    I saw a GOP apologist on TV trying desperately to defend McCain’s ad, and the best he could do was to say that, “schools could interpret the bill to mean 5 year olds get sex-ed.” (emphasis mine) Even he wouldn’t go so far to as to claim it was mandated.
    More lies from the right, trying to raise fears about sex and kids to smear the left. The sad part is seeing a gay man be part of this, considering how often this smear is used on us.

    Comment by torrentprime — October 1, 2008 @ 6:58 pm - October 1, 2008

  13. Ever see a gay pride parade? You don’t see the normal couple from next door marching in their work clothes, you see people marching nude and engaging in sexual behavior that shouldn’t be for public consumption.
    Are you lying on purpose? Or is this just a “I’m making this up as I go along?”
    The last few SF pride parades contained more family and church floats than porn stars. Church after church, family and cultural groups following kids and strollers. You explicitly see people marching in their casual clothes, right along with the silliness and the funny and the sexy. What kind of crap are you peddling? I’m not claiming there is no sex on display (what you label as perversions and perverts, you open-minded wild-at-heart, you), but to claim that it look like Mardi Gras (strange how no one cares when thousands of straight kids go naked for a week) and nothing else is simply wrong.

    Comment by torrentprime — October 1, 2008 @ 7:17 pm - October 1, 2008

  14. ’m not claiming there is no sex on display (what you label as perversions and perverts, you open-minded wild-at-heart, you), but to claim that it look like Mardi Gras (strange how no one cares when thousands of straight kids go naked for a week) and nothing else is simply wrong.

    Nice try, but Mardi Gras is not held out by straights as an example of a cultural norm. And straight kids do not run around naked all week. People at Mardi Gras can be and are arrested for public indecency… and straight people do not defend it as “part of our culture.”

    And if you do not consider public sex depraved and perverted, you are very much at odds with the mainstream of society.

    Comment by V the K — October 1, 2008 @ 7:23 pm - October 1, 2008

  15. I would never in a million years take my kids to a Mardi Gras celebration. Shoot I don’t even think I want to attend one without them.

    American Elephant-I am not sure I agree with you on the issue of gays, children and adoption. I think two gay men or women can provide a very stable home life. I would agree that the ideal is a mom and a dad-I do think having both genders as parents brings something to the family that can’t be met in a single parent home or a same sex home, but not to the point that I think prohibiting the ability of gays to be parents is a good idea.

    We are friends with a gay couple in our community. One of the men was formerly married and he and his wife had three children. Two of his children live with him by choice, because the home life provided by the gay couple is far more stable and secure than living with their mother. One of his sons still lives with his mother, who doesn’t make him go to school, doesn’t demand he do any kind of chores, and is fine with him playing video games all day. He missed over 25 days or partial days of school last year, because his mother let him stay home or made him stay home to take care of his younger half sister.

    The bio dad is trying to get custody of this son, but they still haven’t had the actual hearing yet-her attorney keeps getting it continued.

    But given a choice between the gay couple who has rules and expectations and values education and the mother who doesn’t-the gay couple should win hands down.

    I really don’t think being a heterosexual couple and capable of reproducing automatically makes them better parents.

    Comment by just me — October 1, 2008 @ 7:59 pm - October 1, 2008

  16. “All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”

    And let’s show an example of what liberals consider to be “age-appropriate” for Level 1, or ages 5 – 8.

    • Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.
    • Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.
    • Masturbation should be done in a private place.

    So Obama’s law mandates teaching kindergartners how to masturbate.

    Not that it surprises anyone that gay liberals and Democrats support that, given what they do as an “educational experience” for their own children.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2008 @ 8:29 pm - October 1, 2008

  17. First of all, it’s inane for the state to assume that all young children are at the same level and that any curriculum covering a large number of children can be age-appropriate for all of them. That is a parental judgment.

    Second, it’s awful that the first thing Obama wants a young child to learn about sex is that it’s a form of violence.

    It occurs to me that the way for conservatives to engage the topic is to say, “Parents, not the government, should be deciding what ‘age appropriate’ means. We think the role of government should be limited to providing information to parents to help them discuss this sensitive topic to their children.”

    Comment by V the K — October 1, 2008 @ 9:55 pm - October 1, 2008

  18. To follow on BrentinMSP’s last line in his response to WhatAboutPalinsReligion, there are many straight conservative Christians like myself who don’t necessarily condone homosexual acts as a matter of morality but who by no means assume that being in a gay relationship prevents one from going to Heaven. Many Christians, including some pretty dang conservative Christians, adamantly disagree with people like Jim Dobson and Pat Robertson on this issue. It’s not that we agree with Gene Robinson on the issue, but we don’t see how either their tone or substance is helpful to anyone. Most Christians I know are much more concerned about heterosexual sin. My friends and I wrestle with this issue frequently, trying to figure out how open and hospitable we can be on this issue without compromising our belief about scripture. I imagine the vast majority of gay Americans wish churches would just dismiss our understanding of scripture, and my friends and I would definitely like to do that, but we can’t just dismiss scriptures we don’t like. (Yes, I realize Christians do pick and choose scripture all the time, but my friends and I try not to do that, but that’s a huge can of worms for another discussion.) Even so, hopefully we (straight conservative Christians) can be honest about our own sin, refute other Christians who make homosexuality out to be a bigger deal than it is, be hospitable, and keep the conversation going. The bottom line is that most Christians have a very nuanced view of this issue and personally prefer to be hospitable rather than judgmental. Many Christians have a friend like Sarah Palin’s friend, and I don’t know of many churches that think that’s a bad thing.

    Comment by cme — October 1, 2008 @ 10:08 pm - October 1, 2008

  19. I choose to identify as misanthrope.

    Comment by Don Meaker — October 1, 2008 @ 10:39 pm - October 1, 2008

  20. […] regarding current politics, Sarah Palin and John McCain both pretty much have a live-and-let-live attitude regarding gay people. They both […]

    Pingback by Republicans And Homosexuality « Tai-Chi Policy — October 2, 2008 @ 3:12 am - October 2, 2008

  21. 67: me too!

    Comment by Vince P — October 2, 2008 @ 5:05 am - October 2, 2008

  22. Alexandra,
    You seem to have some trouble with the English language, so allow me to help:

    Palin said she believes being gay is a choice. I’m not sure why that’s confusing.

    She didn’t say coming out was a choice, she literally said being gay was her friend’s choice.

    Actually, her exact words were, “She is one of my best friends who happens to have made a choice…”

    You are putting words in her mouth when you claim to know exactly what choice she was referring to. But regardless, there are MANY prominent people, and millions more like them for whom being gay IS a choice. What was Ellen Degeneres previous girlfriend’s name? She said it was a choice. Tammy Bruce has said it was her choice. So, no, there is nothing “HILARIOUS” about using such language “in this day and age. Its accurate language for millions of people.

    Listen, I know conservatives pretend they understand there’s supposed to be separation between church and State

    Actually, Alexandra, neither the Constitution, nor any other founding document says anything about a “separation of church and state”. What they do say, explicitly, however, is that there shall be NO religious tests to hold office. In other words the bigotry you espouse, suggesting that religious believers should be ineligible for office because of “separation of church and state”, is patently unconstitutional.

    Also know folks, gay marriage will happen. Trust me. It will happen. America is founded on change and freedom

    Really? I know America is founded on personal freedom, or more specifically, liberty, because the founding documents make it very clear. But I’m wondering if you could point me to the part of the Constitution or Declaration where it says our nation is founded on change — cus its not in my copies. Indeed, the founding fathers made it very difficult to change the Constitution — which is of course why liberals believe in a “living, breathing” (read: meaningless) Constitution, so that it can mean whatever they want it to mean that day.

    …and [freedom is] what we’re talking about….Its’ about one person being in a monogamous relationship with another person. That’s all

    Wrong. Sorry. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with freedom. You are already free to have a monogomous relationship with whomever you choose (provided theyre of legal age) No one is preventing you. Marriage as far as society is concerned is a bag of goodies we hand out to encourage people to do something we deem beneficial to society. You are just as free to enter into the institution as anyone else is, you just choose not to, instead you are demanding that the institution change, and that everyone else in society not only approve of, but reward you for doing something entirely different.

    No one’s talking about marrying their Ford Escort or their pet turtle. Which by the way, is another HILARIOUS argument.

    No, but people are talking about marrying multiple people or relatives. And there is nothing “HILARIOUS” about it to anyone who can follow a train of logic. There are logical reasons for excluding same-sex couples from the institution that would be negated by including gay marriage. Once gay marriage becomes law and “love” is the reason government gives out marriage licenses, there can be no logical reason to exclude groups or relatives from entering into the institution together, only arbitrary ones. And arbitrary doesnt stand up to legal scrutiny well.

    The choice to stop Americans from uniting with other Americans in a loving relationship, and that choice will go down in history as archaic and misguided.

    Nobody is stopping you from uniting with anyone in a loving relationship, Alexandra. Go! Be free! Unite in whatever relationship you wish. It is YOU that is demanding that everyone else approve of you, and hold your same-sex relationship in the same regard as the ONLY relationship that is capable of reproducing society and the ONLY relationship in which children can be raised by both their biological parents.

    All because you have a HILARIOUS perception that you are being victimized.

    It is you, Alexandra, who are misguided. Grow up.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 2, 2008 @ 5:54 am - October 2, 2008

  23. And just to make it crystal clear Alexandra, when you use the force of law to coerce people into approving of you who do not, it is YOU and ONLY you, who are robbing others of their freedom.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 2, 2008 @ 5:57 am - October 2, 2008

  24. My test for politicians is, “Overall, how good are they for indivdidual libertty?” In other words, on the statist meter (with 0 being Murray Rothbard-style libertarian anarchism being 0 and Mao, for example, being 100), are they more in the direction of 0, or more in the direction of 100? If Palin secretly loathes homosexuals (which I doubt), but doesn’t want to institute laws to persecute them (which she’s given no evidence of desiring), she’s certainly way lower on the statist meter than the Neo-Marxist doofus and career State-shtupper running for president and vice-president against her and McCain.

    Comment by Bilwick1 — October 2, 2008 @ 8:57 am - October 2, 2008

  25. Look at her record in government – not that she has “gay” friends – she is anti-gay, wants legislation to ban same sex unions

    She vetoed that bill, numbnuts.

    Comment by rightwingprof — October 2, 2008 @ 12:51 pm - October 2, 2008

  26. Actually Sarah Palin’s gay friend does exist. I know this for a fact because Sarah’s friend is my sister’s partner and has been for many years!!! She is very much alive and doing well. She is a great person and a valuable family member. I can attest that their friendship is alive, well and very current.

    Comment by A girl who knows — October 2, 2008 @ 10:46 pm - October 2, 2008

  27. American Elephant stated “There is a rational reason that government promotes marriage as it exists, and that is because men and women can provide two things to society that no other coupling can:
    1. They reproduce society, and
    2. They are the only coupling in which a child can be raised by both its biological parents.
    Two logical reasons to keep the institution as it is, and two reasons why there is no equal treatment issue involved.”

    So does that mean straight couples who ADOPT non biologically related children should not get all the rights under marriage??

    I have two children with my partner. Anyone who is anti-same sex marriage is hurting not only the same sex couple (and definitely not promoting tolerance), but also hurting innocent children.

    Comment by Karen in Santa Cruz — October 2, 2008 @ 11:15 pm - October 2, 2008

  28. Did you happen to hear Palin’s comments about her feelings towards homosexuals in the debate? She kept repeating the word “tolerate”. She would be willing to “tolerate” gays…Come to a level of “tolerance”. Most of us want and deserve acceptance – not tolerance. Those are two very different things and its clear that she is a homophobic idiot who doesnt know her ass from her elbow.

    Comment by antho — October 3, 2008 @ 12:12 am - October 3, 2008

  29. I say no thanks to the Thought Police thug in comment 76

    Comment by Vince P — October 3, 2008 @ 12:40 am - October 3, 2008

  30. Anyone who is anti-same sex marriage is hurting not only the same sex couple (and definitely not promoting tolerance), but also hurting innocent children.

    Interesting, Karen… despite your insistence that the lack of marriage hurts children, you and your partner chose to bring children into your relationship anyway, knowing that your lack of marriage would hurt them — which means you deliberately put children into what you consider to be a harmful situation. Furthermore, since you insist children are harmed by having unmarried parents, logically, you should support forcing people who have children to get married to avoid harming the children.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2008 @ 2:56 am - October 3, 2008

  31. To Karen in Santa Cruz et. al. re AE’s reproductin comment.

    There are two undeniable biological facts at work:

    1. Unless they take active measures to prevent it, most heterosexual couples that regularly engage in sex will produce children.

    2. Unless they take exceptional measures to cause, no homosexual couple that regularly engages in sex will produce children (and even then it will not be the natural chiold of both members of the couple).

    From these facts, I think is reasonable for the law to assume that a long-term committed heterosexual union will contribute to the continuation of society while a long-term committed homosexual union will not. Yes, there are exceptions to both, but trying to act like the societal benefit from the latter is equivalent to the former seems like an exercise in self deception.

    Re marrying family members, if my state offered gay marriage I can see no good reason I shouldn’t be able to marry my brother or father. If my wife and my mother died and I wanted to raise my children in a loving stable home with my father, why shouldn’t we be able to marry and have the same benefits of other married couples raising children? Or is consumation required to validate a gay marriage? Why?

    Comment by submandave — October 3, 2008 @ 5:25 pm - October 3, 2008

  32. What a great vid–touching. Thanks for posting. This makes me think about a straight guy I sat next to in class for a whole semester, who didn’t reject me when I told him I was gay. Makes me think of all those super people who are accepting, but him especially. Kudos to Sarah.

    Comment by Keegan — October 9, 2008 @ 2:02 am - October 9, 2008

  33. I do believe she meant that it was her friend’s “choice” to be openly gay. I think she is fairly accepting, she doesn’t understand it of course, because she’s not gay herself. If her friend had decided to not live open as a lesbian, she could have married a guy she wasn’t attracted to and tried to live a normal life, but that would be living a lie. She could have chosen to give up on love and just remain lonely, but that wouldn’t be ideal and she wouldn’t be happy. Sarah’s friend chose to be honest about her sexuality and found happiness. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

    Comment by Christie — October 16, 2008 @ 2:31 am - October 16, 2008

  34. […] vice presidential nominee did indicate her support of a federal marriage amendment, on at least four occasions in this campaign, she has said we should treat gay and lesbian citizens fairly, not […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Worst Vitriol against Gay Conservatives in 15 years — November 3, 2008 @ 1:15 pm - November 3, 2008

  35. Love is Love

    Our love is no different than your love

    We are not effecting how YOU live

    Comment by Bobby — January 9, 2009 @ 6:48 pm - January 9, 2009

  36. Never seen such stupidity and lying in a public figure. This gay this gay that debate is starting to make me angry. LEAVE PEOPLES SEXUAL TASTES TO THEMSELVES YOU COW.
    And who cares if one likes to sleep with his own sex. Keeping up with building useless nuclear instruments of death and making war is ok, but peoples sexual preferences are discussed by politicians, while theseacts or preferences are private.
    “Gay People” don’t even exist, these are just people having sex with another person. It’s not a defining character of a human, it’s just taste for some sexual behaviour. We should re-educate people. Gay people don’t exist, so lets call them “people” once again and leave their sexual preferences to themselves.

    Comment by Angrier than yesterday — June 18, 2009 @ 9:37 am - June 18, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.