Posted on 04/08/2005 11:10:27 AM PDT by RedBeaconNY
Hey FReepers- I am a sophomore in high school. For English class, I have to write a debatable paper, and I have chosen to write on the various negative effects of homosexuality and the homosexual movement on American society. I was wondering if you could direct me towards some credible sources on the subject- including a list of laws passed for/against homosexuality, opinions, stats, etc. Your opinions are welcome too- all's fair in an opinionative paper ;) Thank.
Many homosexuals use the term to describe themselves, so they don't think it's objectionable.
And educated people know the definition of queer can mean different things, mainly "different" so they don't consider it objectionable either.
before it was possible that an entire class of citizens would willfully renounce their interest in procreation, this was barely a consideration. Now, however, it is major consideration.
There are people who renounce the means of having children who seek, by our legal system, to influence the course of a nation over future generations. Yet they have no real interest (as in tangible stake or valid claim) in that future. What say should they be allowed?
This is not to say that homosexuals don't enjoy the same constitutional rights as any other citizen, but that their rights basically end when their lives do; what say should they be given in someone else's in the future? Reflection on this shows there is more to the "we want to raise children" cry than just satisfying some psychological craving drive to be a parent or to feel special in the eyes of a little one.
Note that this argument has no bearing whatsoever on those who are duly mated but cannot have children.
This is a valid line question that will certainly cause the fur to fly and get you labelled a "nazi" just for daring to ask it in this "tolerant" time we live in. Touchy ground, and begging for wise and discerning minds, but that's no reason to shy away from it.
Those who have heterosexual sex out of wedlock? Same? Better, Worse?
"These people put most of the crap posted on these threads to lie."
One piece of anecdotal evidence proves absolutely nothing.
Please report back when these loving lessies finally split the blanket as they almost certainly will. It will likely be loud, violent, hurtfull and result in an emotionally shattered young girl.
I predict it will not be too long in happening.
Everything, wow, that's the first 100 I have received since college.
>>Those who have heterosexual sex out of wedlock? Same? Better, Worse?<<
In my eyes, the same. Unrepentant sin cannot be categorized - you can't steal "just a little bit", the same as you can't kill or sodomize "just a little bit".
Adultery, polygamy, etc are all detrimental to the Family, and are of the same destructive level as homosexuality.
Of course, adulterists aren't attempting to gain preferrential rights in society, don't seek special cable channels to call their own, and aren't trying to get laws passed that will legitimize their behavior. In order to continue on with your attempted comparison, you'd also have to ignore countless data that shows sodomites engage in unhealthy and dangerous activities (not to the extend of heteros), are more prone to drug abuse, violence, domestic assault, and pedophilia.
You can't compare the two. The ramifications of a homosexual lifestyle are far more dangerous than adulterous heteros.
Although many people may feel perfectly comfortable calling homosexuals "queers," and some homosexuals may use that word to describe themselves, I still find it objectionable.
"The Pink Swastika" is a very good historic source of the homosexuals in Nazi Germany and their presence in present day society.
It covers how hitlar found the homosexuals to be useful idiots to his efforts to redo society. How the brownshirts were essentially feeding grounds for the homosexual officers.
It is the darker side of the homosexual movement. It is usually available online, sometimes even legitimatly for free.
Why?
"Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" in evidence.
Homosexuals are in a constant propaganda war to hide the fact that their entire "status" is based on a sexual act.
Imagine how little success they would have with protest marches of homosexual men demanding the "right" to play with penises of other men? Insteat they just demand rights to be "happy" aka "gay".
Homosexuals are only about recreational sex.
I am pissed every time someone uses the term ,"gay", to describe queers, although, I am guilty of it myself.
They have stolen a word out of the English language and made it theirs. Locally, a couple married and his last name was Gay. Instead of her taking on his name, the groom took the brides last name, which was Lewis. This is horrible for this to happen.
Here at Freerepublic, we don't have to be PC. When it comes to that term, gay, I will not be PC.
He took HER name? That is just plain sad on so many levels.
Why not pick a new name? He could have gone and pick some other name OR he could have been a "man" and stood his ground.
There is more to that relationship than just a name issue...
Many would disagree with you.
Here it is: The Pink Swastika
I suggest you don't wait up.
Do you know how much arrogance you displayed to even post the response you posted, especially the comments about other peoples religious beliefs.
Be prepared to get an F, no matter who well written your essay is.
I'm sure they won't, and, I don't care. I wouldn't presume to try to change them.
They'll both be dating guys before you know it.
I doubt it, and I don't care.
Do you know how much arrogance you displayed to even post the response you posted, especially the comments about other peoples religious beliefs.
The fact that you think it's arrogant doesn't make it so.
You and the PC people on the left may want to normalize the activities of these people, but it will never be normal. Ever.
The rest of the story is, as far as my beliefs are concerned, I don't have a big problem with what these people do. The world is full of sin, I'm a sinner, you are a sinner. I don't obsess about certain kinds of sin.
Homosexuals are no more sinful than heterosexuals who are committing sexual sin.
Which doesn't mean I won't call someone on these nonsensical notions like Two Mommies and being married and faux Christian "ministers" pretending God would bless sin in some goofy ceremony.
You must care about their religious beliefs or were you just passing some time when you criticised them before.
I never said I could make it so. Your damning of their wedding and religion was arrogant. Read the definition and our opinions may agree. I don't intend to make this a fact. I distinguish opinion from fact as you did not earlier.
I don't give a hoot about normalcy statistical or other wise. This started when I said you can't paint millions with the same brush as others here do regularly. If you think I've joined some left-winged plot to normalize anything, well, enjoy your fantasy.
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.