[JTN]

It's a long article, but this absolutely destroys every argument the homosexual agenda pushers are using.

It doesn't destroy the argument that people who aren't hurting anyone else ought to be left alone.

[wagglebee]

So, homosexual marriage, polygamy and incest don't harm society?

Evidently you believe that morality and societal values are irrelevant and that our values actually infringe upon the "rights" of others. Should we all stop eating pork and force women into burkas because to not do so offends Muslims?

[Bubbatuck]

It doesn't destroy the argument that people who aren't hurting anyone else ought to be left alone.

Good for you, and good luck. I tried making that argument here awhile back and was accused of everything this side of mother-raping. I agree with you. It used to be libs that were concerned with what everybody else was doing. Now it's so-called conservatives.

[EricT.]

It doesn't destroy the argument that people who aren't hurting anyone else ought to be left alone.

I agree that people have the right to do whatever they want in their bedroom, so long as it doesn't involve children or animals. However, I also don't think that a sexual fetish is a valid basis for status as a protected minority with special rights.

[ArGee]

It doesn't destroy the argument that people who aren't hurting anyone else ought to be left alone.

When they try to create the notion of homosexual marriage and adoption, they are hurting others.

If they want to be left alone, they can stop making their sexual fetishis a mater of public policy.

Beyond the implications of the public policy requests, the homosexual lifestyle tells you something about the person's character, in the same way that the adulterous lifestyle tells you something about the person's character. You should be allowed to make decisions based on that information. Not decisions that would lead to violence, but decisions about association, hiring, etc.

I'm sure the Catholic Church would agree.

Shalom.

[DBeers]

It doesn't destroy the argument that people who aren't hurting anyone else ought to be left alone.

That argument was destroyed resoundingly in 2004 and its destruction will continue...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

It doesn't destroy the argument that people who aren't hurting anyone else ought to be left alone.

I guess that is why Michael Jackson moved to Bahrain... maybe he can catch an exotic venereal disease...

[Baraonda]

"It doesn't destroy the argument that people who aren't hurting anyone else ought to be left alone."

Homos may or may not hurt anyone in particular, but they do hurt our Christian society and culture.

[metmom]

I suppose it depends on what your idea of *hurting* someone is.

It hurts those who are physically injured by that lifestyle.
It hurts society by tearing down the family and social order.
It hurts the wife and child who catch HIV/AIDS from an unfaithful husband.
It hurts the wife who is sterile from a sexually transmitted disease that is so freely passed around by that lifestyle.
It hurts those who catch HIV/AIDS through tainted blood and blood products.
It hurts society when the healthcare costs for treating these folks for living a lifestyle that spreads these diseases become a burden.
It hurts children who are molested by these people.

It is not a harmless lifestyle. And besides, there would be a lot less resistance to it if they would leave everyone else alone and stop shoving their immoral lifestyle in others faces, demanding special rights because of it.

[Lurker]

DING DING DING....

Give JTN a cigar.

I personally don't care who want's to f*** who or how they want to do it. As long as it's consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes and their own lives going about their business voluntarily I don't really care.

Further, I don't see how it's any of my business so long as they don't try to force me to clean up after them. If guys want to marry guys, I say let 'em.

It's wierd, and certainly not my choice but so long as I ain't paying for it I couldn't care less what they do.

Hell, I'll take it one step farther and ask where the Constitutional authority is for the Feds to even step in on this one. The word 'marraige' isn't anywhere in my copy of the Constitution.

Short of a Constitutional Amendment, there's no role for the Feds to play here at all.

L

[MillerCreek]

Well, fine, but "they" don't leave society "alone." I think the case of intolerance for and about homosexuals is based largely on the fact that most people tolerate just about anyone and anything as long as it does not directly impact them and people they care about (families, locales, themselves).

But homosexuals are not known for their tolerance of others. We have today two percent of the population with a lot of troubles imposing their troubles on the rest of the population and if anyone's "not leaving alone" others, it's homosexuals, not the heterosexual society.

The articles, again, this thread, substantiate that the behaviors are learned and selected and by the mere fact that society "has to" accommodate to such an extent set of problematic behaviors as "truth" (which it isn't, and that is that homosexuality is not immutable and yet homosexuals demand that society accept them as such) is the source of unresolvable (nearly) problems.

If homosexuals would isolate and demand to be "left alone," fine, I think most others would accept that. It's not the case, however, given that a large part of the homosexual presence is contingent upon narcissism and a huge amount of imposition because of that upon others, both culturally and predatorially.

[July4th64]

I can never agree that homosexuality is right, or that it's normal. Thats why I can't support the gay political agenda. But I am in sympathy with your response.

I've seen first hand the suffering that people go through with tying to come to terms with this issue. Maybe some people embrace it, but others really suffer.

We all struggle and suffer with somthing in our lives. Why is this any worse? I don't think it's right to attack or impugne people in this lifestyle.

Hopefully, it's still possible to disagree with someone, yet still be respectful of that person (something I fall short of frequently in my life but pray I'll do better!)

[Antoninus]

It doesn't destroy the argument that people who aren't hurting anyone else ought to be left alone.

Funny, they won't leave the rest of us alone.

Like most people, I didn't care what butt-sex crowd did--until they started trying to get their agenda into schools, into the law, into politics, into the culture, into my family.

Now, I view them as a very nasty and very dangerous pressure group that needs to be opposed by all Americans of good will.

[RobbyS]

Then we should leave prostitutes alone.