The Homosexual Mafia attacks the "Door to the Right"

TaxRelief ^ | October 19, 2004 | TaxRelief

[TaxRelief]

If you want to fix 'judicial tyranny' then support a Constitution Amendment to deal with that.

It's a good point, but actually the constitution already has a mechanism for dealing with "judicial incompetency".

The Homosexual Mafia will not be content until it rules. Their marriage challenge is NOT about "equal rights"; It is about gaining access to children.

The homosexual movement, by its abnormal nature, is dependent on the recruitment of young people.

Ask yourself this: why do homosexual participants, as a group, statistically have virtually no "members" without disabilities such as spina bifida, lifelong obesity and facial or physical deformities? Obviously, because they are not "recruitment material".

Homosexuals are more attractive physically, because participation in these activities is a choice, and are not innate. All consenting adults have equal access to marriage with someone of the opposite sex.

[TaxRelief]

Correction:

Ask yourself this: why do homosexual participants, as a group, statistically have virtually no "members" with disabilities such as spina bifida, lifelong obesity and facial or physical deformities?

Obviously, because they are not "recruitment material".

[ninenot]

Bookmark

[TradicalRC]

whether you like it not, there are greater threats to our liberty than from the homosexual movement. For example, various government agencies like the IRS and EPA

True enough. Those agencies ARE a threat to liberty and therefore a threat to society. However, Acceptance of homosexuality is a threat to our Judeo-Christian ethos and is also a threat to society. Any culture that has embraced homosexuality has then gone on to shrivel up and disappear. Rightly so. A freer country that accepts homosexuality as normal would not be worth defending or even living in.

[William Terrell]

. . .and next time they may take on one of the better known heroes of freedom such as Ann Coulter or Neal Boortz.

Boortz? Boortz is all for homosexuality. Preaches that it is genetically determined, and uses really specious evidence for it being genetically determined.

The homosexuals are not going after Neil Boortz.

That said, the notion that we should not defend any American from corrupt attacks and false witness because of their political affiliation is not only disastrous for our tradition form of government and its moral foundation in our system of (common) law, it is the solid basis for tyranny and the rule of man instead of the rule of law.

In my opinion, anyone here that takes that position is no different than the forces that initial and pursue such attacks.

[TradicalRC]

I'm glad that the article actually pointed out that O'Reilly is NOT a conservative, however there are far too many that are mature enough to know what true conservatism is and yet cling to the version that B0'R spouts and believe that THAT is what conservatism ought to be.
I don't buy that door to conservatism stuff anyway. Having a clear well thought right understanding of reality is conservative and will attract any clear-headed person.
All others will crawl into the hole of their ideological world.

[ninenot]

Alright, list the reasons

1) DOMA does not have corresponding Federal legislation making DOMA "off limits" to judicial review (although Congress has that power, they cannot get it past the Senate.)

2) All Supreme Court justices whose names are NOT: Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas.

Regrettably, these are the only two reasons one needs.

[TaxRelief]

...there are far too many that are mature enough to know what true conservatism is and yet cling to the version that B0'R spouts, and believe that THAT is what conservatism ought to be.

That's where those folks will stay: in limbo land, undefended and unconvinced.

However, the fact that some folks do not progress, does not preclude the reality that millions of people do make it across the "Great Divide" as they learn to open their eyes.

[ninenot]

If you understand that O'Reilly is anti-nomian, that helps a good deal. He prefers to be a "consumer watchdog" kinda guy.

He's also a VERY big-GUmmint sort. Last night was a typical example: after it was made crystal clear to him that the Gummint-run Flu shots deal is an abject failure (this is be the second year in a row with problems) O'Reilly advocates that "the Gummint take over."

SHEEEESHHHH!

[pray4liberty]

Why do gay people want to "get married" in the first place? Don't they realize the IRS penalizes married people? Consider most gay relationsips last even less time than Hollywood's. The divorce lawyers will make a fortune. No doubt they are for gay "marriage."

[Paul C. Jesup]

Ask yourself this: why do homosexual participants, as a group, statistically have virtually no "members" with disabilities such as spina bifida, lifelong obesity and facial or physical deformities?

Except for handicap and intersex groups, I know of no political groups , including Republican and Democrat parties, barring a few rare occasions, that parade around any types of the people you listed above.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Ignoring the last half of my post does improve your arguement.

[Paul C. Jesup]

There is an old "The Outer Limits" episode I would like you to see dealing with 'the eye of the beholder'.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Today, every adult has exactly the same marriage rights. If the federal marriage amendment passes, every adult will still have exactly the same marriage rights.

As I stated previous, I am pointing out holes in the agruement that can be used by the courts to interpret. Of course if that is what you want, go on ignoring those holes.

[Aquinasfan]

There is an old "The Outer Limits" episode I would like you to see dealing with 'the eye of the beholder'.

Loved the old "Outer Limits." I was fortunate enough to see the "cookbook" episode when I was at an impressionable age. It blew my little mind 8-)

[Paul C. Jesup]

Ignoring the last half of my post does NOT improve your arguement.

[Paul C. Jesup]

True enough. Those agencies ARE a threat to liberty and therefore a threat to society. However, Acceptance of homosexuality is a threat to our Judeo-Christian ethos and is also a threat to society. Any culture that has embraced homosexuality has then gone on to shrivel up and disappear. Rightly so. A freer country that accepts homosexuality as normal would not be worth defending or even living in.

Actually, I find ignoring the Ten Commandments to be a FAR GREATER threat to Judeo-Christian ethics and society than homosexuality.

There is a preacher I know who works in the prison system to help inmates and some of the murders, thiefs and rapists think their crimes were far less sinful than homosexuality.

He was of the same opinion as me that people needed to get their priorities straighened out.

[afraidfortherepublic]

I have never understood why some people are so passionate about making marriage illegal for homosexuals to the point of passing a constitutional amendment on the matter.

It's the money.

Any two people in America are free to form any kind of legal partnership that they want and bestow any amount of worldly goods on the other -- and ,as far as I know, powers of attorney, etc. However, the only way that homosexuals can latch on to retirement benefits and social security benefits and health plan benefits is to get homosexual marriage legalized so that they can make a claim on their partner's employer.

Carry that to the extreme and employers and the government will soon find themselves priced out of their various insurance plans. There will be a seismic shift in the way benefit plans are administered across the nation. Stay at home moms and children will be the losers here.

[Paul C. Jesup]

It's the money.

Any two people in America are free to form any kind of legal partnership that they want and bestow any amount of worldly goods on the other -- and ,as far as I know, powers of attorney, etc. However, the only way that homosexuals can latch on to retirement benefits and social security benefits and health plan benefits is to get homosexual marriage legalized so that they can make a claim on their partner's employer.

Carry that to the extreme and employers and the government will soon find themselves priced out of their various insurance plans. There will be a seismic shift in the way benefit plans are administered across the nation. Stay at home moms and children will be the losers here.

So in a nutshell you're saying screw one group for the benefit of another group?

Doesn't that make the homosexuals the victims in this case?

Note I am asking questions and not making statements.