Posted on 03/28/2006 9:15:39 AM PST by Reagan Man
(CNSNews.com) - Religious conservatives meeting in Washington, D.C., lashed out at homosexual advocacy groups and organizations catering to the political Left on Monday.
One participant criticized the "gay agenda," which he said calls for not only acceptance, but also "affirmation and celebration of this behavior as normal and even desirable."
The two-day conference, entitled "The War on Christians and the Values Voters in 2006," is sponsored by Vision America, an organization that describes its mission as "restoring Judeo-Christian values in America." Conference participants produced a "Values Voters' Contract with Congress," which includes key elements of the conservative, religious agenda.
Based on the Republican Party's 1994 "Contract with America," the "Values Voters' Contract" lists 10 aims, ranging from legislation to keep the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to laws guaranteeing greater religious freedoms in the workplace, prohibiting human cloning and embryo research, and guaranteeing a "right to life" to all children before birth.
Defending the family is a key goal of the so-called "values voters." The traditional or natural family is one of the targets of the political Left, said Peter LaBarbera, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute. He said he was proud to share the stage with "heroes in the fight for normalcy."
Peter Sprigg, the Family Research Council's vice president for policy, noted that the family "is not merely a social construct subject to infinite redefinition.
"We believe what makes a family is one man and one woman uniting in marriage for a lifetime and bearing children from that union," Sprigg stated. "We are against anything that threatens the traditional family or undermines that idea," including pre-marital sex, pornography, adultery and prostitution.
"And yes, we are also against the practice of homosexuality," he added.
Sprigg said Christians do not hate homosexuals. "On the contrary, we desire the best for them. However, we believe engaging in behavior that is unnatural, immoral and dangerous to the public health and their own health is not the best thing for people with same-sex attractions."
He noted that the FRC and similar organizations also oppose the "gay agenda," which "demands full acceptance of the practice of homosexuality -- morally, socially, legally, religiously, politically and financially.
"Indeed, it calls for not only acceptance, but affirmation and celebration of this behavior as normal and even desirable," Sprigg said.
The Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman and founder of Traditional Values Coalition, stated that the "gay agenda" would come to a quick end if Americans rose up in numbers against it.
However, "Christians are nice guys, and nice guys finish last," he added.
LaBarbera agreed with Sheldon's analysis. "By simply saying we oppose the sin and not the sinner, we leave the playing field to homosexual activists and their euphemistic talking points, which are 'discrimination,' 'equality' and that poor euphemism, 'sexual orientation,'" he said.
Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, said that while everyone is a sinner, homosexual behavior can have especially dangerous results. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that in 2002, 49 percent of AIDS cases resulted from sexual relations between two males 13 to 24 years of age.
While most speakers said they prefer using the word "homosexual" instead of "gay," Sheldon said he usually sticks with the term's original meaning: "sodomite."
A number of organizations were criticized for supporting the "gay agenda," though one group in particular -- the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) -- was the subject of another panel decrying its "radical secularization" efforts.
Mike Johnson, senior legal counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, noted that the ACLU has always had a subversive agenda and is the "number one religious censor in America" due to its skillful use of fear, intimidation and misinformation.
One method the ACLU uses to "chip away at the moral and religious foundation of America" is to silence the gospel by removing any references to God in the public square, he said.
However, Mat Staver, founder, president and general counsel of the Liberty Counsel, noted that since Samuel Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court, he's noticed a growing reluctance on the ACLU's part to attempt appeals to the highest court in the land.
"Maybe they realize the Supreme Court isn't their social engineering friend anymore," Staver said.
William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said he has been battling the ACLU for decades, and is encouraged by the "great work" being done by such groups as the Alliance Defense Fund and Liberty Counsel.
Donohue said he has discovered why the ACLU files so many lawsuits to try and force communities to take down nativity scenes. "It's because there aren't three wise men and a virgin in the entire ACLU."
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which describes itself as the nation's "largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy organization," says its goal is to ensure that "all GLBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
"By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against GLBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all," the group's website states.
The ACLU's Lesbian & Gay Rights Project brings "impact lawsuits" in state and federal courts throughout the country, according to the group's website.
"Our legal strategies are built on the idea that fighting for civil rights means not just persuading judges but ultimately changing the way people think," the group states.
"
Its obvious from your answers that you find it appalling that it could happen. But homos should be free to practice it. Dont you find it contradictory?"
No. Because I believe that sin and law are two different things.. For example I believe you sinned in some of your responses on this thread but I don't want you arrested.
Jesus said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's."
"1.) There should be no special approbation of one's sexual fettishes when it comes to contract law. If two sodomites want to form a partnership, they are perfectly able to do so right now. There need be no special acknowledgment in the law of a deviant sexual relationship or of the mental disorders of the individual parties as the rationale behind the contract.
2.) Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as everyone else right now. Any laws specific to homosexuals are by definition special rights.
3.) There is no "American principle" that says that who you are is predicated upon where you put your penis. That is a principle of the hedonist left which emerged from the sexual revolution of the 1960s."
1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. No specific rights but its covered under general rights.
"So how is stopping two people of the same sex from being married any different from stopping a man and his adult daughter from being married? On what grounds would you allow one over the other?"
Because government sanctioned marriage is an endorsement and an incentive. We don't endorse most things just because they are allowed -it two different questions. I'm allowed to over eat, be lazy and not go to church but I don't want the government encouraging those things either.
Post #104 was supposed to be addressed to you. Sorry about that.
BTW, I always get criticism when I talk strategy without emotion - its a flaw of mine that comes up over and over.
If we could stick to keeping marriage as defined as one man and one woman while emphasizing equal rights but no extra rights we would be talking about something that is achievable.
I know people feel emotional about this and I really don't. I'm really only interested in strategy and fairness but I'll try in the future to be sensitive to those feelings.
However, "Christians are nice guys, and nice guys finish last," he added.
He obviously hasn't read the end of The Book bump
I think you're being unduly pessimistic. We may be as little as one vote away on SCOTUS from being able to recriminalize homosexuality. If Stevens retires, which many think is likely, I think many things become possible. At the very least, it's a fight the feds might withdraw from which would open up opportunity in many a State.
You have not explained why you think that anyone should get special legal recognition because of their methods of sexual gratification.
"You have not explained why you think that anyone should get special legal recognition because of their methods of sexual gratification."
I don't think that at all. In fact I am specifically against all extra rights or legal recognition sexual orientation or practices.
You are inconsistent in your statements. One one hand you say "I am specifically against all extra rights or legal recognition sexual orientation or practices" and yet OTOH you say:
"Yes but some people are trying to prevent the formation of legal households (not marriage but other legal arrangements) based on sexual orientation. That seems to be a violation of equal protection."
You are disagreeing with yourself. You can't stand on both sides of this issue. Either a person has special recognition because of his/her sexual practices, or he doesn't. I am very clear - no special or different rights or recognition because of varied sexual practices of self-proclaimed "identity". You are seemingly trying to straddle the fence on this one.
Civil unions, domestic partnerships, and so on are just marriage by a different name, and homosexual activists aren't satisfied with these appeasements. Why not? Because they admit they want to re-arrange society and change the very meaning of family. How do I know this? Years of reading and study. I have a list of quotes from homosexual leaders saying this unashamedly. I'll look for it and put it up on this thread later.
And given the fact that there are who knows how many former homosexuals, and more and more people are finally understanding that homosexuality can be treated in many cases, that people don't have to be "gay", the entire foundation for any special recognition of any immutable "gay identity" is gone.
When I read the above I find it very hard to think that you really mean this. Are you unaware of the many, many laws that have been implemented to promote "gay rights"? Are you aware that that every effort to promote legal recognition of homosexuality as something which needs protection or rights means MORE AND MORE LAWS?
Law upon law upon law. Government control increases with the increase of special rights for homosexuals. Rights for cross dressers in schools and jobs. Laws prohibiting homeowners from not renting to homosexuals, transvestites and so on. Laws mandating that schools teach "gay is good" sex ed and including "gay is good" cirricula in every aspect of school. Laws mandating that foster and adoptive parents attend "senstivity training". Laws mandating that government employees attend such training (which is nothing but homosexual indoctrination). Laws prohibiting any speech which might "offend" homosexuals.
The claim that conservatives who oppose special rights for homosexuals want big government is a flagrant lie. It's the proponents of "gay rights" who want to use big government (and specifically the judiciary) to shove it down our throats.
"You are inconsistent in your statements. One one hand you say "I am specifically against all extra rights or legal recognition sexual orientation or practices" and yet OTOH you say:
"Yes but some people are trying to prevent the formation of legal households (not marriage but other legal arrangements) based on sexual orientation. That seems to be a violation of equal protection."
You are disagreeing with yourself. You can't stand on both sides of this issue. "
I'm really not disagreeing with myself. Adults have the right to form whatever households they want and to enter into voluntary contracts with each other.
Everbody - its not based on sexual orientation.
Homosexuals (and everyone else) already have the ability to form any kind of legal contracts they want. Anyone can name anyone as their legal heirs, arrange hospital visitation, pre-arrange power of attorney, co-own anything they want.
You know this already, and I don't trust you. Homosexuals have every single freaking right that I do.
"In the sense of this conversation, "special" and "extra" are practically synonymous I don't care for the term "special" any more because of it's over-use. It is almost as grating as "deluxe" to me.... Extra (as in more than I or any other "average" citizen has) rights are never "right""
That makes perfect sense. Similarly, I don't use the term "sexual preference" because of the way it sounds.. it makes it sound too much like what you are in the mood for as opposed a fundamental orientation.
You're kidding, right?
Lawrence vs Texas took care of sodomy laws. You're accusing conservatives like me of wanting big government but you can't provide one scrap of evidence supporting your position.
It's those who want legal recognition and protection for those who choose to practice same sex sodomy who want big government.
ANd the reason for sodomy laws was to keep it private. Now it's on streets in parades, in school displays, sex ed, ads, and so on. I don't mean necessarily being performed (although it is more and more), but it is now being promoted more and more especially to kids as normal and natural. After all, it's not against the law any more. In Massachusetts as soon as "gay marriage" became the law of the land due to two judges saying it was, the education department of MASS immediately mandated that the entire public school system now had to adopt standards equating homosexual relationships equal to marriage in every grade.
How's that for government intervention?
Haven't read all the posts yet, but this is, by far, the best definition I've seen for "gay agenda."
Frankly, I liked it better when the homo's stayed in the closet and kept their sexual orientation to themselves.
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.