Posted on 10/11/2004 5:58:59 PM PDT by HallowThisGround
You're somewhat new to freerepublic. I suggest you click on the keyword "homosexualagenda" below the article and try to catch up on what you've missed.
Homosexuals and their supporters/sympathizers have deep pockets and wield a lot of influence. They see their cause as a civil rights issue, but it's something that will forever change society. Haven't you noticed that tv shows, movies are making this appear to be a normal lifestyle?
I don't know where you live, but here in California public schools can lose federal and state funds for not including teaching "sexual orientation" and let children decide what gender they are. Most of these same schools would send a child home for wearing a religious symbol unless it is part of the Islamic religion.
I'm in a lower middle class neighborhood and there are couples working more than one job to keep their children in private schools so they can get a basic education without having to be politically indoctrinated.
A Pediatricians study found that nearly 25% of children aged 12 were not sure what gender they were. I would suspect the numbers are even higher in California and other states that have included homosexual/transgender teaching in schools beginning in first grade.
So far, 8 states have received a "passing grade" from a homosexual advocacy group for their teachings/laws in schools.....see how your state did:
sex in the schools: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1190682/posts
That's quite a list when it's compiled and stored in one place. Thanks.
We didn't bring the subject up - it's the homosexuals who keep this issue in the headlines. We just present the truth. And we can't ignore the homosexual agenda in the schools - for on this issue we have to stay on the offensive.
I spent some time in the http://www.freedominion.ca forum (Canadian equivalent of freerepublic) and noticed there are some Christians who are trying to gather to protest their loss of religious freedoms. Some were discussing getting other religions to join them and even risk getting jailed to make their point to the government.
I found the following article posted at the Canadian forum:
http://ignatiusinsight.com/features/mobrien_thoughtcrime_sept04.asp
(hate speech laws in Canada, Spain, Sweden and other countries are causing preachers to be jailed)
I think you've oversimplified the Law of Nature
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Law%20of%20nature
The Golden Rule says: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The way you're applying it to homosexuals is somewhat understandable, but you must consider the consequences of warped minds that would do something to another because they would want it done to them.
Christian and Libertarian just don't go together unless you ascribe to the "liberal theology".
There's very little that I agree with on the current Libertarian Party presidential candidate (Badnarik). It's a real mixed bag of agenda.
http://badnarik.org/plans.php
I agree that marriage -- man and woman -- is one of the foundations of a successful society. I agree that going away from this will be disastrous for the Western World over the long run.
I agree with you that this common sense definition of marriage SHOULD prevail throughout the nation. I wish the Marriage Amendment had passed Congress and was on its way to the states.
But I am merely looking at it from a cold, political perspective. You know, the majority of Californians voted to ban gay marriage in their state, yet they will not vote out Boxer and Feinstein. Louisianans overwhelmingly voted to ban gay marriage and civil unions, but Mary Landrieu felt perfectly safe in voting against the Federal Amendment. Etc, etc, etc.
I am worried that there simply isn't the will to pass the Amendment as it is currently stated. So I am suggesting that our side instead try and hold what we have, and call the bluff of all these 'gay marriage-no, Amendment-no, let the states decide-yes' types and put forth an Amendment that reflects what they claim to believe.
I think it would have a better chance at becoming law. Yes, it would mean that several states would eventually go for gay marriage, and that several more would at least go for civil unions. But it would also mean that the majority of states would be free to reject any legal recognition of same-sex unions, and not have it force on them by the Sup Court or their own state court.
Yes, this would be a strategic retreat, but sometimes it makes sense if it helps you hold own to what you already have. Just as Hadrian relinquished Trajan's conquests in Mesopotamia, and just as Augustus gave up Germany, so to should we consider giving up the Northeast and Pacific Coast.
"It's definitely a fight I don't care to fight.
I just think by us fighting it, some how, some way, we are the ones that keep the discussion going. I really don't think the politicians would vote for it if we make it a non issue for discussion.
I could be wrong!"
You are.
But it's not just wills. It's also things like power of attorney under certatin circumstances, the ability to see each other in the hospital as if they were family, and other things.
You said:
"Just ignore them and let them battle with the politicians."
The very reason the "gay" agenda pushers have acheived the tremendous power over the past generation is precisely because we - who should have known better - have ignored them. Either you are not informed, or worse.
If the homosexual radicals are to be resisted, it must be with courage, determination, and truth. Ignoring them allows them to infiltrated, threaten, legislate from the bench, and indoctrinate OUR children.
Enemies of freedom and truth should never be ignored, they should be conquered and destroyed - rendered powerless. In this case, put back in the closet.
You hate putting a group in one category. Did you ever learn critical thinking?
I hate putting murderers in one category.
I hate putting child molesters on one category.
I hate putting all adulterers in one category.
I hate putting all Democrats in one category.
Do these statements make sense?
Homosexuals aren't really a "group" - it's a behavior. It's rational to put people who all act a certain way into a "category" of people who share the same behavior - in this case, the category of people who commit same sex sodomy; have a higher rate of promiscuity, a higher rate of child/youth molestation, and generally promote same.
You might not directly be touched by the "gay" rights agenda pushers, but millions of children are. I care about them. Don't you?
If you don't know much about what homosexuals actually do, what their plans have been and are, how they indoctrinate children and force acceptance and glorification of the "gay" life on others - there's no better place than FR to study up.
Check Scripter's and other freepers' links. You could read for days. Nothing like knowledge to light up the darkness.
Do you consider yourself to be a Christian first or a individual first and if you see yourself as a man of faith first then in my opinion I feel that it would be difficult for you to look beyond your faith and see the greater issue, which is the issue of civil rights and not the issue of what the American public feels. I've often heard people say that majority should rule and history has taught us that majority should never rule, only the constitution should be the deciding factor, because that is precisely what it is there for.In the 1950s most Americans who according to polls were against Blacks having equal rights and in the 70s many were against interracial marriage, despite the fact that it was still a man and a woman.I'm not going to compare interracial marriage to that of homosexuality, because there is no real comparison other than the fact that the public's opinion was considered over the Constiution.It's not that the Constitution doesn't say that all people should be equal and that there should be a separation of Church and state it's just that America has never really lived up to those promises primarily due to racial and religious biases and prejudices, which is why Slavery existed and why Blacks as well as Women and other Minorities had to fight for their rights in the first place even though the Constitution made it clear that they were entitled to them. The question that we have to decide for ourselves is if we are going to follow the law and the constitution or just public opinion, which more than likely is prone to bias and prejudice.
24, Female, Straight, Biracial, Europe, Jewish Faith
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.