Remember back in the early 90s when debate was raging across America about sodomy laws? The social conservatives of that era often warned that repeal of sodomy laws was a precursor to homosexual marriage. The liberals of that era ridiculed the SoCos as hate mongers and scare mongers for even suggesting such a result.
Half a generation later, we are confronted with the state’s adoption of homosexual marriage notwithstanding the public’s overwhelming disapproval. So what now?
The non-partisan political action group, National Organization of Marriage, is airing a brilliant, touching and very effective ad that provides clear insight into the next step of this radical homosexual agenda.
The ad provides a most foreboding yet accurate adumbration of the larger future. Already, entire days of school are devoted to homosexual appreciation through “Day of Silence” activities. Anti-bullying laws are used by heterosexual liberal teachers and administrators to prevent any expression of the overwhelming disapproval of homosexual students by their peers, and the few of the academic’s own fellows who must maintain their views in the greatest of confidence. Religious speech is aggressively prosecuted in Canada and Europe and is already suppressed in some states south of the Canadian border. Religious health care providers are required to treat homosexuals against the religious teaching of the providers themselves.
The next step in silencing dissent and teaching the next generation to refrain from any expression of any disapproval of the liberal orthodox liturgy is the adoption of state and national “civil rights” laws. The essence of disapproval would be criminalized by extending specific protected classification to homosexuals. The specter of criminal prosecution and civil litigation that would arise from such classification would terrify a public already cowed into nearly complete silence by the strictures of political correctness.
Most states, including Iowa, have hate crime laws. Speech can and is prosecuted under hate crime laws if it’s “ntimidating”. Let us never forget that the local Labor/Socialist/Democrats were “intimidated” by booing at a political event so I think the reader can easily imagine the new concept of “intimidation” that would arise in this brave new world.
Several Iowa cities already have such ordinances and liberals have long sought to amend Iowa’s state civil rights statutes to encompass homosexuality as a protected class. Of course opponents will be labeled “haters” and “homophobes” (which isn’t even a real word) and shouted down by the PC crowd, which is how normal civil and moral tolerance has been turned into forced approval and encouragement by the bizarre counter-intuition of liberal thought.
And thus civilization does die with a whimper.
Half a generation later, we are confronted with the state’s adoption of homosexual marriage notwithstanding the public’s overwhelming disapproval. So what now?
The non-partisan political action group, National Organization of Marriage, is airing a brilliant, touching and very effective ad that provides clear insight into the next step of this radical homosexual agenda.
The ad provides a most foreboding yet accurate adumbration of the larger future. Already, entire days of school are devoted to homosexual appreciation through “Day of Silence” activities. Anti-bullying laws are used by heterosexual liberal teachers and administrators to prevent any expression of the overwhelming disapproval of homosexual students by their peers, and the few of the academic’s own fellows who must maintain their views in the greatest of confidence. Religious speech is aggressively prosecuted in Canada and Europe and is already suppressed in some states south of the Canadian border. Religious health care providers are required to treat homosexuals against the religious teaching of the providers themselves.
The next step in silencing dissent and teaching the next generation to refrain from any expression of any disapproval of the liberal orthodox liturgy is the adoption of state and national “civil rights” laws. The essence of disapproval would be criminalized by extending specific protected classification to homosexuals. The specter of criminal prosecution and civil litigation that would arise from such classification would terrify a public already cowed into nearly complete silence by the strictures of political correctness.
Most states, including Iowa, have hate crime laws. Speech can and is prosecuted under hate crime laws if it’s “ntimidating”. Let us never forget that the local Labor/Socialist/Democrats were “intimidated” by booing at a political event so I think the reader can easily imagine the new concept of “intimidation” that would arise in this brave new world.
Several Iowa cities already have such ordinances and liberals have long sought to amend Iowa’s state civil rights statutes to encompass homosexuality as a protected class. Of course opponents will be labeled “haters” and “homophobes” (which isn’t even a real word) and shouted down by the PC crowd, which is how normal civil and moral tolerance has been turned into forced approval and encouragement by the bizarre counter-intuition of liberal thought.
And thus civilization does die with a whimper.
47 comments:
Sporer,
Wow! I don’t really know where to begin.
So, sounds like you are lamenting the fact that we got rid of those sodomy laws and are not throwing gays in jail for their private sexual activity. Also seems like you are sad that many schools are not tolerating kids harassing other kids. Now that if anything is a great family value and is really helping to keep the fabric of our society together!
How about “public’s overwhelming disapproval”? What is it now, 60-40 the latest polls, with an estimate of 2% erosion in anti-gay sentiment each year? Not a real solid footing for your side in the long term even if you allow some margin for error with the numbers. And looking at the polls with young people, looks like you guys are really trying hard to completely lose the generation W already alienated pretty darn effectively.
As for the “brilliant, touching and very effective ad,” I really just feel so terrible for those poor people. How can they ever go on with their lives?
If anon in the previous thread is right and you are not very religious, may I ask what your beef with gays is? Did you get bullied in the school yard and called names? Are you fighting your inner demons like our good old friend Teddy Haggard?
Sporer,
I think you should blame those damn radical founding fathers for this mess. Why on earth did they put liberal craziness like “all men are created equal” and crap like that in their documents? Didn’t they realize that some degenerates 200 years later would be taking their words literally?
Take a look at your future, gay marriage haters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
It took until 2000 to get rid of the last law banning blacks from marrying whites, but we made it happen.
“don’t make me express approval of miscegenation by having the government force me to lend you the imprimatur of my approval through a marriage license”
- 40% of Alabamans who voted against repealing an anti-miscegenation law in 2000.
Wow, you're giving alot of credit to the gay community to say gay marriage will inevitably lead to the death of civilization, that's stretching it a bit.
This ad you speak of("a most foreboding yet accurate adumbration") how exactly can a sketchy or imperfect representation be accurate, or were you just hoping your readers would be mesmerized by the big words. This ad is just ridiculous. No one is asking heterosexuals to convert. Nobody is trying to take away their right to marry whomever they choose. Gays do not have an "agenda" they just want the same rights as heterosexuals and to be treated the same under the same laws, to be able to marry whomever they choose. Whether it's you or the NOM supporter, this issue is a civil rights issue, if we all cannot have the same rights we are not all free.
Bullying of any kind is uncalled for, especially in a school and to denounce it is very hypocritical to any faith. As far as religious health care providers go, if they didn't want to provide care for certain people, they should not have become doctors in the first place and accepted the hyppocratic oath-first do no harm, as the absence of care leads to harm. Using the bible, or religion as a means to interpret marriage is specious at best. Until you follow ALL the laws of the bible, you have no right to impose the few.
By the way, homophobe is a word- ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. homophobe - a person who hates or fears homosexual people
bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
rf, I've got inner demons but they aren't homosexuals.
My objection is a recognition social morality and the application of a generally shared morality is all that stands between us and a Hobbesian nightmare on one hand and the total state (that liberals are so eagerly seeking to create) on the other.
AS for the shifting numbers, that still remains a super majority in opposition, that appears to be a product of PC rhetorical oppression.
Oh, you mean a word that homosexuals and liberals made up.
fede-you prove my point like a hired foil. Define "bullying". If a homosexual comes to school in drag and force his twisted life style on my child why is my child not free to voice disapproval? Because it makes the burgeoning drag queen feel bad?
There is nothing in the Constitution that provides a "right" to marry. Marriage is a privilege that the government licenses, that is all.
Homosexual rights weren't even a concept when the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment were enacted, much less the DoI or the Constitution.
The difference between laws against miscegenation and laws against homosexual marriage is the former's artificial defiance of the natural order and the later's reenforcement of the natural order.
I might add, miscegenation's survival into the 20th Century is one of the hall mark of Democrat governance.
I was rather shocked to see such distortions of the truth in the ad you embedded.
No law forces religions to sanctify marriage between two people of the same sex, nor does it require them to acknowledge it isn't immoral. No law requires schools to teach that homosexuality is good. No law requires traditional marriage to "defend" itself.
Homophobe is a word coined in 1972 and since then accepted by all legitimate dictionaries. It was made up just like the word "Christianity" was made up...just like "democracy" was made up...just like every other word we used was made up.
I do feel sorry that you seem so chagrined by change and progress, but lying about it isn't going to help.
Sporer,
If a homosexual comes to school in drag? Last I checked, homosexuals don't come to school in drag. Transexuals may be dressed as the opposite sex, the way my female cousin now dresses in baggy pants, t-shirts and binds her chest down so people don't know she's a girl, but it isn't "drag". It isn't some outrageous gaudy attention-grabbing outfit. Gays don't wear that to school. Great thing is, nobody at her school cared (and she is NOT in an area where you'd expect people to support such a thing).
Yes, marriage is issued by the government, which is why religion should stay out of it.
And I'm sure the founding fathers weren't thinking about blacks marrying at the time either, and absolutely NOT having blacks marrying WHITES! What difference does it make what was considered over two hundred years ago? Times change, we must progress and adjust acknowledge when a change just doesn't actually affect us. Gay marriage doesn't hurt you, so what's the big deal?
And in the end, gay marriage will be legal everywhere in America, so you need to be prepared for that.
-K
adjust AND acknowledge*
Where were the well thought out comments, reasoning here you had debate coach? Yell as loudly as possible and repeat discredited "scary people" stuff? Seriously?
Wow. You claim to have a lot of education, but your arguments really fail to expose anything except your own personal bias. There are thousands of lgbt people living in the world, raising children, living a life style that is similar to straight people's: work, family, church, school, home, pets - why are you so afraid? And why do you think that you live in a theocracy? A secular state protects your right to believe - and frankly all your bluster about your child being exposed to a "burgeoning drag queen" is beyond offensive given the number of children killed for appearing gay, effeminate or just plain different. It is because of people like you that some children learn to hate. SHAME.
Sporer,
I'm shocked that you believe a gay youth's mere existence is as hurtful and damaging to your child as the bullying, harassment, and assaults perpetuated by other children that the gay youth has to experience every day. Any reasoned individual should immediately decry the physical harming of children in school, and yet you seem to believe it is justified on the basis of that child's dress?
There is no valid justification for a child to hurt another child. It does not matter if they are a different race, a different religion, or a different sexual orientation; no one should be afraid of being beaten while at school.
Sporer,
I’m still wondering when I’m going to find out what the actual negative effects of gay marriage will be for our society and us as people. I hear it makes you and your fundamentalist Christian friends uneasy, but I’m still hearing nothing about the actual negative impacts.
In one of the earlier posts you also expressed some concern about the numerous recent shootings in this country. How is the promotion of hatred and discrimination of a minority helping to address these problems?
Going back to my question in one of the earlier threads, how is politics driven by fundamentalist Christianity different from the Taliban and their like? I know you think you are right and they are wrong, but for the rest of us it sure seems like the same thing.
While RF can't see any ill-effects of diversity in this country, I can definitely point to ill-effects of hate:
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/mom_says_springfield_boy_11_wh.html
This is the unwitting result of advertisements like you embedded, I'm afraid to say.
"Oh, you mean a word that homosexuals and liberals made up."
So homosexuals DO have influence in this country if they can sinle-handedly change a dictionary.
"Bullying" applies to ANYONE who is cruel and aggressively intimidates another. Voicing disapproval is one thing, vehemently bullying is another. I think your problem lies in your identity of a homosexual and a transvestite. I haven't heard of any cases as in the scenario you describe. As far as the "burgeoning" drag queen goes as long as people like you continue to impede the rights of gays, there is no room for them to grow and fourish.
"Marriage is a privilege that the government licenses, that is all."
BINGO! Finally, someone said it. Thank you. The religious folks should have no problem with the concept of gays marrying as it is just another license granted by our government... god, not included.
"Homosexual rights weren't even a concept when the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment were enacted.."
I beg to differ, since homosexuals are people and the Constitution addresses a "persons" rights, it is in effect covering ALL the rights of ALL people.
Non-natural rights of personhood, created by social contract:
(1) To enter into contracts, and thereby acquire contractual rights, to secure the means to exercise the above natural rights.[1,15]
(2) To enjoy equally the rights, privileges and protections of personhood as established by law.
Since marriages are a privilege (and more or less a contract) and licensed by the government, and these laws were placed to protect ALL people, then gays have the legal right to marry just as anyone else does. Thereby you have proven MY point.
"The difference between laws against miscegenation and laws against homosexual marriage is the former's artificial defiance of the natural order and the later's reenforcement of the natural order."
Since "natural order" speaks of physical universe and is not subject to human or supernatural law this cannot be integrated into the realm of societal domain. If you have any knowledge of the world of nature, there are documentations of homosexuality within nature and as humans,we are of the animal kingdom, we can only be included within that realm. Thereby I can only conclude that homosexuality is of a natural descent.
"I might add, miscegenation's survival into the 20th Century is one of the hall mark of Democrat governance."
While a "hallmark" is indicitive of quality or excellence, you make it sound like a bad thing. If it wasn't for the excellent foresight of the Democrats, my marriage would have been an "abomination".
I wish that those defending marriage would focus more on the high divorce rate. Various sources differ somewhat (see divorcerate dot org), but most put the divorce rate at 40 to 50 percent for first marriages. This seems to be a much greater threat to the institution of marriage than extending marriage to other adult couples does.
Anon 3:50 is absolutely right. Cal Thomas is clearly not pleased with gay marriage, but even conservative like him can put things in relevant perspective:
"Most of those who are disturbed about same-sex marriage are not as exercised about preserving heterosexual marriage. That's because it doesn't raise money and won't get them on TV. Some preachers would rather demonize gays than oppose heterosexuals who violate their vows by divorcing, often causing harm to their children. That's because so many in their congregations have been divorced and preaching against divorce might cause some to leave and take their contributions with them."
Jo, we're the same age.
The "not real word" was a joke, perhaps sarcasm would be a better word.
So, which part of the ad is false or so out of context as to render it substantially false?
Seriously, be an atypical liberal and support your statement with some proof. Each of those people make a factual claim and I'd like to know which specific claims are false.
Then we'll talk.
So, purple gang, just where have I brought religion into this discussion?
I am talking about the degradation of an already overly degraded society.
Why haven't any of you answered any of the arguments in my post? Do you think saying-you're just a hater proves anything at all.
Where is my analysis of homosexual rights as a vehicle for further restriction on thought and expression? Haven't seen any of that, just the childish repetition of tag lines. (except for rf and I will deal with you after I eat and fix my basement floor).
Anon 10:49
Blacks married and mated with whites from the dawn of recorded history. The colonial laws against such biological and historical behaivor were as weird and unsupportable as are the homosexual marriages that you advocate.
Anon 10:49
I'm pretty sure that wearing the opposite gender's gender specific clothing (like a dress in the USA) is a transvestite-like Dr. Franenfurter in Rocky Horror Picture Show?
Isn't a trans-sexual someone who actually has undergone, another euphymism, "gender reassignment"?
rf, here's the difference between christians who cite christian belief as a basis for political thought and the Taliban.
The taliban used religous belief to control private behaivor. Homosexuals were executed and homosexuality, like many other things, was not tolerated.
Christians are not seeking the abolition of legal homosexuality, at least not most of the one's I know and I run in a pretty conservative crowd, but they also don't want their culture to express approval of and provide financial encouragement for a sexual deviancy that they view as immoral.
My arguments have nothing to do with religion and a lot to do with bestializing and already bestial culture.
rf, here's the difference between christians who cite christian belief as a basis for political thought and the Taliban.
The taliban used religous belief to control private behaivor. Homosexuals were executed and homosexuality, like many other things, was not tolerated.
Christians are not seeking the abolition of legal homosexuality, at least not most of the one's I know and I run in a pretty conservative crowd, but they also don't want their culture to express approval of and provide financial encouragement for a sexual deviancy that they view as immoral.
My arguments have nothing to do with religion and a lot to do with bestializing and already bestial culture.
Anon 4:56, seriously, do you have brain damage. Where on earth do you get the idea that I supported sodomy laws?
To make it clear, my point was the existence of a real slippery slope. One thing does lead to another if we aren't careful to draw lines between tolerance and forced approval.
Of course you should be able to bugger your friends in private if you're so inclined. You just don't have a right to make me publicly approve of your bad private behavior. Largely I don't care what people do in private.
"So, which part of the ad is false or so out of context as to render it substantially false?"
------
1.) Which freedom are you losing?
2.) What is considered "far beyond same-sex couples?"
3.) How is a "California Doctor" (who isn't even a doctor, but merely an actor) being forced to choose between their faith, and their job?
4.) A parent "helplessly standing by watching her son be taught that same-sex marriage is okay", um kids are taught not taught anything about marriage except that children come from ALL types of families: single-parent households, heterosexual married households, and households with same-sex parents. And by the way, the parent can have their children OPTED OUT of these classes.
5.) "Some people who advocate for same-sex marriage have not been content with same-sex couple living the way they want?" - I don't even know what the hell that is supposed to mean. Every relationship is different. Some same-sex couple wish to get married, some don't. We are much more open to other people's way of life than you will EVER be.
6.) "Those advocates want to change the way I live". Um, NO. We could care less HOW YOU WANT TO LIVE. We just wish you would afford us that SAME freedom to live the way WE wish.
7.) "I will have no choice." No choice about what? If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, the answer is simple, DON'T. Nobody is asking you to marry someone of the same sex. But those of us who have been with our partners for years on end (me? 20 years this June) DO want to get married. We are tired of SUBSIDIZING YOUR RELATIONSHIPS, when OUR children could use the financial support that is taken out of my check and given to you!
There are 7 lies or distortions right there!
"The taliban used religous belief to control private behaivor." - And this differs from our rabid Christian brethrens how? Using religion as a basis for government policy is a very slippery slope.
You must also realize that one cannot separate religion from this discussion. True, you are not getting into it. But nearly all your fellow conservatives foaming at the mouth over gay marriage base their opposition on religion more or less 100%, just like our friend Ken. So if we discuss the issue, we can't avoid religion's role.
Sporer,
When are you on Deace's show? I would love to hear you guys discuss this stuff.
Sporer,
No, a trans-sexual does not necessarily have to have gone through gender reassignment yet. The whole idea is to be a male trapped in a female's body, or vice versa. My cousin will eventually begin taking testosterone and when she can afford it, go through the surgeries necessary, but not having done so yet doesn't mean she isn't trans.
Anon 8:00. My understand is that once someone undergoes reassignment surgery is when they are considered 'trans-sexual'. Prior to reassignment they are usually referred to as trans-gendered. (Or do I have that backwards?)
"The difference between laws against miscegenation and laws against homosexual marriage is the former's artificial defiance of the natural order and the later's reenforcement of the natural order."
Ah - the buzz word "natural". As if homosexuality isn't pervasive in the natural world.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
"I might add, miscegenation's survival into the 20th Century is one of the hall mark of Democrat governance."
The old Republican muddy-the-waters canard of trying to pretend that all the racist Southern Democrats evaporated instead of becoming Republicans.
I grew up in the heart of the racist South - Tallahassee in the 50's - the racism-drenched decade you white Republicans love to get so nostalgic about - so I know the taste of hate against both blacks and gays. It leaves the exact same bad taste in my mouth.
As a debater I see you value rhetoric over fact. I would like you to address this statistical analysis of the 2000 Alabama anti-miscegenation vote:
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd505.pdf
"The odds of Democrats approving of interracial marriage were about 75 percent higher than the odds
for Republicans."
Anon. NOPE!
The Bible thumpers need to remember that the old testament is just that - OLD - The new testement is based on the life of Jesus and since you all say homosexulaty is a "sin" remember that Jesus died for all of us on the cross to absolve us of "sin." So what "sin" can homosexuality be? How can you say that your lifestyle is the right lifestyle, just because you are in a "staight" relationship? No one person has the right to dictate what another can do that is why the supreme court ruled the way they did. All people deserve protection under the law, be they white, black, Asian, homosexual, or whatever. Homosexuals were born not made. Get over and get on with your life. Gay marriage will not interfere with your life. Your beliefs are just that - yours - quit trying to make the rest of us believe that way you do. Iowans are independent thinkers and I admire Iowa as being at the front to welcome all people regardless or race, religion, national origin or sexual preference.
@The Real Sporer:
"Half a generation later, we are confronted with the state’s adoption of homosexual marriage notwithstanding the public’s overwhelming disapproval."
- I think 'overwhelming' is being generous. In California, Prop 8 passed with 52.3%. (link)
"The non-partisan political action group ..."
- I don't know if it is you, or this group, that is making the 'non-partisan' claim, but those against gay-marriage are VERY partisan. According to the CNN Exit poll in California's 2008 election, of those who voted yes on Prop 8, 84% were weekly churchgoers, and 82% were Republicans. (link and more stats)
"brilliant, touching and very effective ad"
- Hmm ... I didn't think so.
But let's take a look at the transcript:
'They want to bring the issue into my life.'
- Not necessarily. Vague statement.
'My freedom will be taken away.'
- Another vague and misleading statement.
'I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.'
- The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need – gay or straight, Christian or Muslim – regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith – it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.
'I’m part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we can’t support same sex marriage.'
- I believe this case was thrown out. (link) The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.
'I’m a Massachusetts parent helpless watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay.'
- The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.
'But some who advocate same sex marriage have not been content with same sex couples living as they wish. Those advocates want to change the way I live.'
- False. Unless there is other cited examples you would like to produce???
'I will have no choice.'
- Everyone always has a choice. Move to a different state/city/county/country. Or home school your kids. Or don't take an oath to help people, and then NOT help them!
The rest of the ad is just blather.
"The ad provides a most foreboding yet accurate adumbration of the larger future."
- I had to look up adumbration. :-) Good word! Although, as cited above by me, not accurate.
"entire days of school are devoted to homosexual appreciation through “Day of Silence” activities."
- The Day of Silence is not school ran, but student organized. Your statement is misleading. Please read the Day of Silence's truths here.
Ok, I'm tired of doing your research for you. I'll continue on after lunch ...
Jefferson, your post is both over the top as well as biased for homosexuality in at least as many ways as you claim Sporer is biased against.
@Ken R:
What about my previous post is 'over the top'? Most of it I was stating facts and citing references. I guess I could have taken a page out of Fox 'news' playbook and blatantly lie and actually go over the top. (link)
Biased? Ok, maybe 1 line or 2. But facts are facts. Do your homework.
Continuing:
@The Real Sporer:
"Anti-bullying laws are used by heterosexual liberal teachers and administrators to prevent any expression of the overwhelming disapproval of homosexual students by their peers"
- First of all, there are gay teachers and administrators in our schools too. And again with the 'overwhelming'??? The National Annenberg Election Survey did a study just last year: 'Young adults ages 18 to 29 were also more likely to support full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples (45 percent) than were other age groups. Thirty-six percent of 30- to 44-year-olds, 26 percent of 45- to 64-year-olds, and 15 percent of those 65 years and older favored full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.'
- Also, what do you mean by 'expression'? D you think it should be ok for kids to call a classmate a 'faggot'? And for those that do not like the way public schools are ran, then you are free to home-school your child!
'Religious speech is aggressively prosecuted in Canada and Europe and is already suppressed in some states south of the Canadian border.'
- You should qualify that as religious 'hate' speech. Yes, thankfully the Fred Phelps of the world are being silenced.
'Religious health care providers are required to treat homosexuals against the religious teaching of the providers themselves.'
- Health care providers require doctors treat ALL people, regardless of their creed, color, gender, etc.
'The next step in silencing dissent and teaching the next generation to refrain from any expression of any disapproval of the liberal orthodox liturgy is the adoption of state and national “civil rights” laws. The essence of disapproval would be criminalized by extending specific protected classification to homosexuals. The specter of criminal prosecution and civil litigation that would arise from such classification would terrify a public already cowed into nearly complete silence by the strictures of political correctness.'
- Everyone was, and will always be free to stand for whatever you wish! As long as it does not incite hate, or has any physical attacks on one another.
'Most states, including Iowa, have hate crime laws. Speech can and is prosecuted under hate crime laws if it’s “ntimidating”.'
- I think you meant Intimidating. Anywho, speech is free in this country. You can speak your mind about pretty much anything. As long as it does not incite physical harm. Sure, you are free to drive by a gay bar and yell faggot out your window, but if you get a group of people together and set storm into the gay bar and start yelling and screaming and rile your friends up enough to where they cause harm, then yes, you should be held responsible.
And as a few others have pointed out, homophobia is a real word, per Merriam-Webster, since 1969.
'And thus civilization does die with a whimper.'
- Which civilization are you referring to? The classic 1960's Ward and June Cleaver household? Or the new civilization where we are all actually created equal?
Jefferson,
For starters, your posts are practically unreadable given your format and length. Have some consideration for readers and if you need to write a book; consider finding a publisher before testing the waters.
I hope someone will keep track of teen suicide rates during this very distasteful media blitz by the National Organization of Marriage. I can assure you that there will be some closeted teens and adults out there that will surrender their lives when they see it. Many young people will decide that they do not want to live under that cloud of shame so artfully depicted in this ad. I only wish the government could pull the ad. Disguised as angels, these brokers of lies squeeze the spirit until it disengages from the world. Shame on them.
While we are checking into statistics, we should inquire why divorcing men commit suicide eight times as often as divorcing women. I am sure the fact many men are thrown out of their children's lives is a major reason many men simply give up and kill themselves. Avoidable to be sure, but feminists and liberals have done a number on the American family by providing ready-made awards for women.
Therefore, gay people are not alone in high suicide rates but you do not see me screaming about fathers’s killing themselves because it is a sign of a person without God's hope when they turn to suicide. The fact is, we will all die someday whether by our own hands, by the hand of another, or naturally and the only thing that matters after that is a relationship with Jesus to determine up or down. Suicides are tragedies but allowing someone to avoid it by telling them a destructive and un-Biblical life CHOICE is good is not an option. NOM's commercial is in the public interest by telling Biblical truths within the context of the Bible. Furthermore, the gay agenda is clearly seeking progressively stronger ways to make it ILLEGAL to disagree with them.
Sorry you are offended but not sorry if NOM is simply telling Biblical truth. Finally, when liberals claim Conservative fears are unfounded about "this or that" is usually the time we should pay attention even more.
Ricky,
One other note about gay suicide, the rate is fantastically high compared to the normal population, as are their rates for anal cancer, HIV, depression, among others. A person does not have to young to commit suicide but it seems older gay people do it so often to warrant discussion on gay suicide as a stand-alone topic. My theory is few people with the hope of Jesus have these issues. Why is that? Why do church-attending Christians from Bible believing churches tend to live while gay people who resoundingly reject the Bible tend to die? It is worth pondering.
I just realized I may have assumed a little when I stated NOM's commercial stated truths from the Bible. I actually assume they are doing that but since all video streaming is prohibited on American bases in Iraq (where I work) I cannot say for certain they've done this even if their motivation is from the Bible. Therefore, I will change my stance to say that as long as their presentation is congruent with Biblical teachings, then I have no problem with their commercial.
Ahhhh, Ken, you failed to include the web-site, or the direct dial line, to your hero Mark Klein, M.D. (the man you endorsed for President), in any of your rants above. I'm perplexed by that.....
Anon,
You realize you are a loser right?
Anon,
You realize you are a loser right?
Post a Comment