Replies

Help me understand this. I thought Free Republic was about individual liberty. How does what two consenting adults do in their bedroom impinge on my liberty? Homosexuality cannot be "caught" like a virus or "taught" like a skill. I don't want my kids learning how to have homosexual sex (or really any kind of sex) in school. I don't think homosexual deserve "special" rights than no one else gets. I think the AIDS activists who seem to deny that AIDS is largely a lifestyle disease are deluded and dangerous. But I just am not bothered by the thought that two people of the same sex are intimate. Nor does it bother me that a company would offer benefits to employees with same-sex or unmarried partners. I think we have lots of other stuff we should be concerned about before we waste a lot of energy on this.

I don't want my kids learning how to have homosexual sex (or really any kind of sex) in school.

You just don't get it, do you? Homosexual activists long ago moved this issue well beyond what people do in their bedroom.

They introduced pride parades, making it an issue about about what they elevate as an entire movement. (And, in case you haven't noticed, movements aren't interested in small concessions).

They wanted corporations to equalize health benefits and therefore be treated on the same par as married couples. In other words, they wanted Corporate America not simply to define such a partnership as mere sex, but instead to launch an entire movement to redefine marriage and family.

Now they've moving to totally redefine marriage as any number of people who love each other, which would include 5 men and 6 women in a group marriage; polygamists; bigamists; mix & match 'em! As you can see, such an enterprising definition of marriage and family shows this is no longer simply about sex.

And what? You think that once this right is fully won, kids won't be taught about ALL aspects of social science? You are naive to think that this will remain in Sex Ed class. Nope. Movements are taught in history classes. Family configurations are taught in civics/social science classes. Just as schools celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday, we'll also have Stonewall set-aside days where gay speakers will come in and share their struggle against homophobia and bigotry (anybody who doesn't share their worldview). We already have such speakers coming into some schools for such presentations.

Homosexual athletes who will be "pet role models" of certain educators will be part of the phys ed curricula. As for math, marriage will no longer be 1 + 1; but rather, since it's only about what consensual adults do in their bedroom (to use your language), what's wrong with what 4 heterosexual men, two bisexuals, and 4 mix & match women being part of a 10 polyamorist clan doing what they do in their bedroom post their 10-person marriage?

How does what two consenting adults do in their bedroom impinge on my liberty?

Worldview collision...hey, either the worldview that homosexuality is unnatural is allowed to be expressed in the public square, or, as it is in Canada, it will be squelched with fines, broadcast censorship, corporate admonitions, diversity training sessions, etc. In other words, tolerance of a private lifestyle is not enough for gay activists. You MUST accept, respect and dignify their lifestyle. All people should be treated with dignity and respect--that is true. But it doesn't mean we should respect and dignify all cultural lifestyles any more than I have to dignify the bribery, polygamy, or cannibalization that's been done in other cultures in times & places in human history.

When polygamy is again legalized in this country, your opinions about polygamy--if they are negative--will be forced into the closet, lest you be openly identified as an intolerant bigot who militates vs. inclusiveness and diversity and multiculturalism, making places of employment and schools and etc. as "unsafe" for people to work and learn. Name me just one pro-homosexual marriage argument that doesn't apply to any marital arrangement.

That's why Free Republic is about liberty.

Homosexuality cannot be "caught" like a virus or "taught" like a skill.

That's like saying a woman who was sexually abused with sadistic sexual violence as a child would never embrace such a practice as an adult. That's like saying that any number of sexual thrills picked up as a child--be they heterosexual, homosexual, or whatever, aren't translated into adulthood.

What? You're saying that children can never be trained to engage in deviant sexual or violent behavior? That a child who is hit as an adult won't hit as a parent unless he is genetically predisposed? That a boy who is raped as a child won't have at least a slight % more propensity to rape a child as an adult?

I mean how many prostitutes or those in the sexual entertainment industry will tell you they were abused as minors by heterosexuals? What? That sexual behavior didn't influence their current lifestyles? What? These folks are simply (and only) acting out their genetic sexual orientation?

Just because with some people you cannot trace the source of their sexual direction, does not mean it's all in the genes. See post #75 for more details.

"Help me understand this. I thought Free Republic was about individual liberty. How does what two consenting adults do in their bedroom impinge on my liberty?"

Is an addict free? Is being a slave to drugs free? Is being a slave to sexual perversion free?

Does engaging in sex automatically make two people married and thereby a family? You are not simply asking us to ignore what is done in secret. You are asking us to publicly agree with homosexuals that what they do is OK. Giving insurance or other benefits on the basis that two people engage in sex is asking for society to condone it.

Should my share of costs be higher in order to provide medical insurance to someone who is engaging in risky sexual behavior?

You claim that homosexuality does not spread. You are incorrect. During formative years we all are influenced by what we see and hear as we develop our gender identity and a sexual imprint (largely influence by our first sexual encounter). There are more homosexuals today than ever before in our nation.

To confuse the behavior of sodomy with a type or class of person is a fundamental fallacy. You presume that two homosexuals can enter into a relationship that is comparable to a husband and wife. A homosexual couple is nothing more than two perverts becoming codependent and engaging in mutually reinforced destructive behavior.

When you accept homosexuals as a class of people, rather than seeing homosexuality as a type of destructive behavior, it will follow that society must adjust to accommodate this behavior. We must not object to two men kissing in public or on our family TV programs. We must teach our children that this is acceptable behavior. We must allow homosexuals to adopt children. They must be allowed to be our children's teachers, doctors, guidance counselors, etc.

You also said "But I just am not bothered by the thought that two people of the same sex are intimate. "

You should be bothered. Exposure to sexual immorality and perversion has desensitized you to them. This will also carry over into your ability to objectively empathize with others' feelings. It will affect your ability to evaluate right and wrong on the basis of your conscience.

At the heart of your argument is the privacy issue. Yes, we have a fundamental right to privacy in a limited sense. It does not mean that anything a person does in private does not affect others and should not be governed by the rules of society. For example, if someone views pornographic images of children being raped, and collects these images in PRIVATE, should there be legal consequences?

You may answer, "Of course". But some places are actually using this logic to make policy and law.