Replies

"The only reason conservatives are pushing for a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage is because the gay activists are trying to destroy marriage."

What a load of crap. Why on earth would these people want to destroy marriage? They just want to be included with the rest of us.

Look, these gay rights extremists annoy me too, just like these nut-cases who insist on attacking Christianity at every turn. I'm personally leery of mixing religion with government, but all these crazy lawsuits like the one a while back attacking some poor kid for mentioning Jesus in her valedictorian speech and some of these other attacks by these atheist extremists do really bother me.

But I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm also cognizant of ultra right wing extremism too. This certainly does exist. And I don't think of it all as being conservative. In fact, much of it does not appear to me to have its roots in conservatism. It's zealotry cloaked under the label of conservatism and it's something I want no part of.

The thought of Constitutional amendments to secure the imposition of moral biases on free Americans doesn't sit well with me. We have more than enough restrictive laws as it is.

A Constitutional amendment protecting marriage - keeping the same meaning it has had throughout the history of this country - is not imposing moral biases.

When the SCOTUS ruled in favor of homosexual sodomy this summer, Rick Santorum predicted it would lead to gay marriage, and other anomolies, because if there are no rules about what is beyond the acceptable limit in sexuality, what gauge is there? The gay activists and their handmaidens all said, No no no, it won't lead to gay marraige or anything else. There is no slippery slope.

Well, well, well - here we have homosexuals wanting to change the meaning of marriage - and even a polygamist is now on the bandwagon. Is NAMBLA far behind? There are many socially and academically respected scholars and psychologists who argue that some sex between adults and children is beneficial for children. It's on the horizon. Peter Singer - a highly respected professer at Princeton University says that adult/child sex can be defensible, and even human/animal sex is fine.

What do you think of that?

Why on earth would these people want to destroy marriage? They just want to be included with the rest of us.

I have some interesting statements from homosexual activists along those lines. About the only one I can find now is:

Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine:
...to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution...The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake--and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely." "Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.

You might find this of interest as well:

The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game...

Manipulation is key with homosexual activists. Checkout a list of links on the subject:

Homosexuality and Manipulation

I'm also cognizant of ultra right wing extremism too.

As I see it, the GHF (God Hates F...) group falls into that category. I don't know anybody on this forum that falls into that category. We're interested in the truth of the matter and deal in what the experts say.

I think the world would have a different perspective on homosexuality if the facts of the matter were better known.