Posted on 03/19/2006 6:23:35 AM PST by Liz
Edited on 03/19/2006 6:24:40 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
[snip Getty image]
HERE'S another reason to keep my precious daughter away from the public schools: Childless eggheads who dictate educational policy think it's high time kids her age were indoctrinated in the ways of AIDS. Like hell. My child is a first-grader, thriving in an outrageously expensive private school. There, she is learning about arctic puffins and can run faster than most boys. This child is still an innocent - unschooled in the intricacies of procreation, death and incurable disease.
It would not be that way in a public classroom.
Faceless activists there want to add these words to the vocabulary of children her age - Virus. HIV. AIDS. Even cancer. Under an updated curriculum, all public-school students - starting in kindergarten! - are required to learn about the disease that we know is spread through unsafe sex, intravenous drugs and tainted blood.
But the first-grade learning guide, of which I have a copy, dances around the issues of sex and drugs while needlessly scaring the heck out of little kids.
Who will explain what he or she is not ready to know? As always, parents may "opt out," in writing.
But parents should demand that those who want to be included should "opt in" to the program - so as not to subject their children to embarrassment.
My child will learn about AIDS when she is ready. That day will certainly come sooner than I'd like. She is not a guinea pig for people with an agenda. My only agenda is to let her grow up. And keep her away from that trash heap known as public school. andrea.peyser@nypost.com
I am well aware of your bigotry against non-Christians and non-heterosexuals. You and I have had this discussion in the past, DBeers, and you have tried to have me banned. I do not support homosexuality, nor do I condemn it. And I doubt the moderators will ban me because I don't embrace the condemnation of it, especially your hateful and bigoted advocation of illegal discrimination against gays.
On the topic of sexuality, I am neutral. In short, it's nobody's business. On the issue of gay marriage, I oppose it because the law defines "marriage" as a union between one man and one woman.
Regardless, I *am* a conservative, and a long-time supporting member of Free Republic. As a conservative, I believe in equal rights for all citizens, and the 14th Amendmendment of the Constitution of the United States backs me on this.
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and a religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams
If you support special rights above and beyond the human rights that all individuals are already afforded -all this, simply because certain individuals choose to engage in homosexual activity THEN you do support the homosexualization of society.
Nor am I a "leftist" for believing that all Americans are entitled to equal rights under the law.
Equal Rights???? People already have equal rights! How about setting aside the platitude and getting specific -what equal rights do homosexual individuals not get now? What is my position denying homosexuals that you feel they should get?
We are discussing individuals that feel they must or actually do choose to engage in homosexual activity (homosexuals) -do you imply that these individuals are not already afforded the same rights others realize?
Leftists support special "homosexual rights" above and beyond the human rights that all individuals already merit and are afforded simply because certain individuals choose to engage in homosexual activity -you are not advocating this are you?
Everything posted on this subject in support of homosexual rights is by default leftist propaganda regardless the equal rights under the law straw man and Constitutional hand waving...
I am well aware of your bigotry against non-Christians and non-heterosexuals.
Oh really. LOL I will stick with the issue you can continue to resort to leftist vitriol and perhaps expedite your own banning better than anyone else could do...
You and I have had this discussion in the past, DBeers, and you have tried to have me banned.
We will continue to have this "discussion" as long as you continue to advocate the homosexualization of society on topics I happen to read and post my opinion on...
I do not support homosexuality, nor do I condemn it. And I doubt the moderators will ban me because I don't embrace the condemnation of it, especially your hateful and bigoted advocation of illegal discrimination against gays.
As far as I know there is no FR policy against homosexuals or homosexuality. FR does not wish to give a platform to those advocating the homosexualization of society e.g. the equal yet homosexual rights you support. FR also does not condone personal attacks e.g. referring to me as "hateful and bigoted" simply because I oppose the leftist position you advocate here on FR...
On the topic of sexuality, I am neutral. In short, it's nobody's business.
But... but... what about this equal homosexual rights thing you support --[it] is nothing if not sexually based. Maybe you really mean equal privileges (which is something akin to socialism)?
Advocating special rights for those that choose certain sexual activities to engage in is a fatally flawed premise for rights e.g. two males who live together may not be able to adopt children UNLESS they engage in brokeback sex -- THEN they can as they are special because they have equal "homosexual rights"...
On the issue of gay marriage, I oppose it because the law defines "marriage" as a union between one man and one woman.
We agree on this albeit for different reasons -regardless our agreement, and regardless the contradiction of this position with the fallacy of equal "homosexual rights" the leftists would term our position on homosexual marriage as "hateful and bigoted"...
Regardless, I *am* a conservative, and a long-time supporting member of Free Republic. As a conservative, I believe in equal rights for all citizens, and the 14th Amendmendment of the Constitution of the United States backs me on this.
I do not know what you are nor do I pretend to know -- I simply address your position with regards to the homosexualuzation of society. My opposition is based upon only your postings I read that advocate for such things as "homosexual rights" under the guise of equal rights...
If you think homosexuals receive equal treatment under the law, then you are a seriosuly mistaken. They face discrimination all the time. The Texas sodomy law was a perfect example- anal and oral sex was legal for heterosexuals, but not for homosexuals. If an act is legal for one, it must be legal for all. This is the essence of equal rights. (although I don't consider sex a "right," but the point is that you cannot make something legal for one group of persons and illegal for others based on their sexual orientation.)
You keep using the term "special rights", which again for the Nth time I will state that I do not support in any way. I do not advocate any right for homosexuals that is not provided for all citizens. You repeatedly state that I support "homosexual rights" and you are in error on this.
I will say it for the last time.. I support EQUAL rights for ALL citizens.
Actually you cite a perfect example of the homosexualization of society by judicial fiat! A leftist victory that had nothing to do with equal rights. LOL The case had nothing to do with homosexual discrimination <----(leftist propaganda) and everything to do with local government (society) having the authority to decide which activities (not which individuals) are unhealthy and or harmful and as such merit penalty e.g. reckless driving and sodomy.
The leftist decision cited foriegn law to support overriding US common law and legislative law as to what is considered unhealthy and or harmful activity...
Look for Lawrence to be kicked to the curb in the furure...
You are guilty of revisionist history. Here, let's get the story straight.
Sodomy:
n.
Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.
[Middle English sodomie, from Old French, from Sodome, Sodom, from Latin Sodoma, from Greek, from Hebrew sədôm.]
Anal or oral intercourse between human beings, or any sexual relations between a human being and an animal, the act of which may be punishable as a criminal offense.
The word sodomy has acquired different meanings over time. Under the common law, sodomy consisted of anal intercourse. Traditionally courts and statutes have referred to it as a "crime against nature" or as copulation "against the order of nature." In the United States, the term eventually encompassed oral sex as well as anal sex. The crime of sodomy was classified as a felony.
Because homosexual activity involves anal and oral sex, gay men were the primary target of sodomy laws. Culturally and historically, homosexual activity has been seen as unnatural or perverse. The term sodomy refers to the homosexual activities of men in the story of the city of Sodom in the Bible. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their residents' immorality became a central part of Western attitudes toward forms of non-procreative sexual activity and same-sex relations.
Beginning with Illinois in 1961, state legislatures have reexamined their sodomy statutes. Twenty-seven states have repealed these laws, usually as a part of a general revision of the criminal code and with the recognition that heterosexuals engage in oral and anal sex. The remaining twenty-three states have various criminal provisions. Some totally prohibit sodomy, whereas others exempt married (heterosexual) couples from the law. In general, however, sodomy laws are rarely enforced because sexual acts occur primarily in private.
State sodomy laws are not unconstitutional. In Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 106 S. Ct. 2841, 92 L. Ed. 2d 140 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Georgia sodomy statute. Michael Hardwick was arrested and charged with sodomy for engaging in oral sex with a consenting male adult in his home. A police officer was let into Hardwick's home to serve a warrant and saw the sexual act. Although the state prosecutor declined to prosecute the case, Hardwick brought suit in federal court asking that the statute be declared unconstitutional.
On a 5-4 vote, the Court upheld the law. Writing for the majority, Justice Byron R. White rejected the argument that previous decisions such as the Court's rulings on abortion and contraception had created a right of privacy that extended to homosexual sodomy. Instead, the Court drew a sharp distinction between the previous cases, which involved "family, marriage, or procreation," and homosexual activity.
The Court also rejected the argument that there is a fundamental right to engage in homosexual activity. Prohibitions against sodomy were in the laws of most states since the nation's founding. To the argument that homosexual activity should be protected when it occurs in the privacy of a home, White said that "otherwise illegal conduct is not always immunized whenever it occurs in the home." Because the claim in the case involved only homosexual sodomy, the Court expressed no opinion about the constitutionality of the statute as applied to acts of heterosexual sodomy.
The first known use of the term sodomy used in a more general sense to mean "crimes against nature" is found in the writings of Jewish historian Josephus (circa A.D. 96) as he summarises the Genesis narrative: "About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices" (Antiquities 1.11.1). Note that the final element of his assessment goes beyond the Biblical data, even in the New Testament. Despite the inaccuracy, this meaning is the primary one that we use today.
From the earliest times in the United States, sodomy (variously defined) was prohibited in the United States. In the 1950s, all states had some form of law criminalizing sodomy. In 2003, only 10 states had laws prohibiting all sodomy, with penalties ranging from 1 to 15 years imprisonment. Additionally, four other states had laws that specifically prohibited same-sex sodomy. The United States Supreme Court, in Lawrence v. Texas, invalidated these laws as being an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.
For whom is reckless driving LEGAL?
You are missing the big point. You cannot make something legal for one group and illegal for another. Oral and anal sex was LEGAL for heterosexuals, and ILLEGAL for homosexuals. So it wasnt government deciding on an activity that was illegal, it was just that a certain group of the population was not permitted to perform the same acts. That, my friend, by definition is discrimination.
That is a straw man and that is NOT what was happening and NOT what the case was decided upon or even argued upon.
People were not discriminated against -activities were discriminated against. Specifically, the Texas statute forbid two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. It had nothing do with people that feel they are homosexual and had everything to do with homosexual activity which anyone can engage in and activity which Texas deemed as unhealthy, dangerous to individuals and a danger to society -something to be discouraged and penalized much as beastiality, prostitution, etcetera... Homosexual activity promotes disease and death -it is ungood...
Texas legislated the law and the leftists on the Supreme court by judicial fiat kicked the will of the people to the curb.
-an excerpt from Justice Scalia's dissent (which can be found numerous places on the webThe Court today does not overrule this holding. Not once does it describe homosexual sodomy as a “fundamental right” or a “fundamental liberty interest,” nor does it subject the Texas statute to strict scrutiny. Instead, having failed to establish that the right to homosexual sodomy is “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’” the Court concludes that the application of Texas’s statute to petitioners’ conduct fails the rational-basis
The leftist Supremes threw reality out the window to impose their version of morality upon the people.
The decision was not based upon the court deciding that homosexual activity was deemed a fundamental right or fundamental liberty (it is still not despite the whining of homosexual activists). The erroneous decision was based upon the majority in the Court stating that the Texas Statute failed rational-basis e.g. the court leftist majority decreed that the Texas law was not necessary because it furthered no legitimate state interest! The basis for this liberal legislation from the bench was foreign law. Apparently if Europe legalizes homosexual activity then the US must follow suit (at least the leftists would argue such)!
LOL -No legitimate state interest according to Europe and the leftist Supremes -what about the citizens of the State?
I suggest you put the human rights, equal rights, and or illegitimate or unfair discrimnation platitudes back in thier pens -those dogs don't hunt in regards to the Lawrence decision.
Good commentary!
Let me add that you reference the the same liberal court construed right of privacy from the penumbra that premises Roe.
In the homosexual agenda olympics competion between the leftist and the people the State's determined interests were deemed invalid by the Court and privacy from the penumbra without any competition was awarded the Gold medal.
You really don't see how you contradict yourself???
Anal sex, oral sex - legal for heterosexuals.
Anal sex, oral sex- illegal for homosexuals.
Nope. No discrimination here!!!
Au contraire; it's the homosexual agenda being promoted by the ACLU that is stomping on the rights of traditional families, the boy scouts, Christians and Orthodox Jews.
My wife has delivered babies to 12 year olds who were impregnated when they were 11, so perhaps it's time to rethink your time table.
Whine, whine, whine. Marriage is not a civil right. It is a licensed activity for those who are fit for it, and that is a man and a woman. We don't allow people who yearn to be doctors but who aren't fit for the work to be doctors so they will feel better about themselves. The same for barbers, manicurists, dog groomers, drivers, etc -- they are licensed activities requiring special qualities and preparation, just as marriage does.
Your scenario denies the rights of children before they are even born. Every child WANTS and DESERVES a mother and a father.
Oh, how we wish the homosexual lobby would stop making it everyone's business, especially school children.
Straw men.
Dispensing narcotics - legal for physicians.
Dispensing narcotics - illegal for laypersons.
There's that licensing and fitness thing again!
Anal sex, oral sex- illegal for homosexuals.
Ahhh... I think see the underlying fallacy premising your moral relative thinking on this subject.
For your argument to be valid one must first assume that human beings are like animals uncontrollably driven to have sex AND that the sexual activity that is not a choice is always premised upon an as yet objectively undefined imprinted for life non dynamic subjective and self-declared "sexual orientation"...
Regardless the fallacy and homosexual agenda propaganda the law still does not discriminate against people -it discriminates against activity e.g.:
Anal sex, oral sex with a member of the same sex - illegal for heterosexuals. <--- regardless what orientation they may declare they are....
Anal sex, oral sex with a member of the same sex - illegal for homosexuals. <--- regardless what orientation they may declare they are....
You seem to be assuming that these 11-year-olds did not have sex education in their schools, and would not have been pregnant if they had. In fact, research indicates that students given classroom sex education are more likely to be sexually active, not less likely.
Perhaps it's time to rethink serious jail time for people (of any gender) who screw 11-year-olds.
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.