58
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 163:
Line 163: + + + + + +
Talk:Homosexual Agenda (view source)
Revision as of 14:48, September 9, 2009
, 14:48, September 9, 2009no edit summary
Why? All the other articles I've seen have references at regular text size. What's particular about this article that it needs to have really tiny footnotes? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 17:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Why? All the other articles I've seen have references at regular text size. What's particular about this article that it needs to have really tiny footnotes? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 17:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
==Homosexuality in Congress==
In a recent discussion with a friend of mine, we discussed what is here called the "homosexual agenda". In addition to the notion of whether "everyone has an agenda" (something I would consider adding to the Debate pool if anyone would like clarification of my terms/beliefs here, I brought up the notion of whether or not there exists a disproportionate number of homosexuals or, unfortunately, scandals regarding previously latent homosexual desires among otherwise Conservative men (Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, the Glenn Murphy scandal), and whether this constitutes the corrupting nature of power, or, as my friend (a somewhat eccentric, Ron Paul-supporter type) suggests, whether these men are "moles" (his term, not mine) representing a quote, "homo infiltration". To put it bluntly, imagine the Manchurian Candidate, but with sodomy.
I was wondering if anyone here (I imagine you have all put some effort into the research and sourcing for this article) had ever heard trustworthy sources, blogs, or essays dealing with such a belief. I obviously don't support the endorsement of wingnut theories, but if it is a more widespread belief among self-avowed Republicans and conservatives, then I think it bears mentioning. I wait to see if any such evidence exists. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 10:48, 9 September 2009 (EDT)