Religious Conservatives Slam 'Gay Agenda,' ACLU

CNSNews.com ^ | March 28 2006 | Randy Hall

[gondramB]

"How is it that homosexuals are above incestuous relationships? "

What? Fathers who sleep with their little sons are criminals.. that's a separate issue.

"According to you it is against American principles to run and hide from who we are? "

A person choosing to hide something private is different than forcing them to hide.

"Why shouldnt the incestuous people be allowed to show who they are?"

If one member of the incest is a child the issue is child molestation made even worse by being incest. If a 60 year man and his 40 year old daughter want live together - that's legal but we don't provide the benefit/incentive of marriage if people are too closely related because it's not good for the children.

This is all consistent.

[sasafras]

"Moral issues aside, I cannot see how you can make an argument that private, consensual relations between adults (even if homosexual) are in any way legally analogous to rape and pedophilia (both of which involve non-consenting victims and/or children) or incestuos marriage (which would require legal recongition)."

What about consensual sexual relationship between a father and his adult daughter? Is that ok? Bring it

[Gone GF]

"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."

Hmmm, does this mean they're against any form of contraception?

[gondramB]

"I dont even know where to start. Homosexual marriage is in the best interests of children???? "

Now you are just deliberately misquoting me.

This is my position: Homosexual marriage should not be legal.

My reasoning is that legal marriage is an incentive provide to help raise families and we only encourage the best way to raise kids - one man and one woman.

[little jeremiah]

Efforts to stop homosexuals from forming domestic partnerships, to have equal rights or to be forced to hide who they are run counter to good strategy and counter to American principles.

First of all, why should homosexuals have "domestic partnerships" and not three men? Three women? Two women and a man? etcetc. Or a brother and sister? Aunt and nephew? Why should same sex sexual practices be rewarded and other sexual affinities (such as a threesome) not be? Why should platonic relationships not be so rewarded?

There are NO RIGHTS that everyone else has that homosexuals do not already have.

What do you mean, "hide who they are"? Are you talking about gay bath houses and gay pride parades here, or are you talking about "out" homosexuals being teachers and joining the military? Write in clear English, please, not slogans that are designed to heighten emotion but have no meaning.

Additionally, your comment "hide who they are" is a talking point of gay rights activists. It means that their sex acts ARE their identity. Sex acts are chosen and voluntary. If you mean their feelings, we all have zillions of feelings. Are people supposed to be grouped in identity brackets because of their "feelings"? Or because of their chosen sex acts? What about bestialophiles not hiding who they are? What about incestophiles not hiding who they are? What about pedophiles not hiding who they are? What about polyamoryphiles not hiding who they are?

[longtermmemmory]

you are only advocating a prior stage of the homosexual agenda.

The point where the only wanted domestic partnerships.

Your statements go with the "orientation" propaganda vs the science of the choice of homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality is a PREFERENCE not an orientation. Treating it like any other sexual fetish is entirly appropriate and equal. Homoseuxals should be viewed in the same light as those who have sex with animals.

[Potowmack]

What about consensual sexual relationship between a father and his adult daughter? Is that ok? Bring it

I do not think consensual sexual relationships between a father and his adult daughter should be illegal. Mostly, such behavior is de facto legal- adult incestuous relationships are almost never prosecuted, even in places where such laws exist. .

[Lucky Dog]

The question is whether the government has a role is dictating private behavior between two adults who both agree to it and don't cause anyone harm. I don't know where the government would get that power - i don't think the people ever meant to give that kind of private control over to the government.

The sale of heroin between two consenting individuals in private currently constitutes a felony. Is it your point that government has no authority (power) to dictate that this behavior is illegal?

Bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, incest, prostitution, etc., can also take place in private among consenting adults. Is it your point that government has no authority (power) to dictate that this behavior is illegal?

Euthanasia can also take place in private among consenting adults. Is it your point that government has no authority (power) to dictate that this behavior is illegal?

[gondramB]

"Also you didnt answer my question again, re. an incestuous marriage - this is betweeen two consenting adults and father and her 18 year old daughter."

I've answered you three times. No.

Marriage between people who are too closely related is not legal and that is a good thing. The reasoning, again, is that is not the environment we want to encourage for raising kids.

[sasafras]

Perhaps your not answering the question on purpose. Let me be very clear here

IS IT OK, FOR A FATHER TO HAVE A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS 18 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER (THAT IS CONSIDERED AN ADULT)?

I didnt say live together, I didnt say 60 year old dad and 40 year old daughter. I didnt say fathers with their little sons. Try not to twist it. If you get confused Ive capped it this time so you can keep referring back to it. This should be interesting but I am growing tired of your incompetence so please answer the question this time.

[NormsRevenge]

"impact lawsuits"

B---S---!

[longtermmemmory]

The ACLU files so many law suits because under the current way the laws are written, EVEN A LOOSING PLAINTIFF IS ABLE TO CLAIM ATTORNEY FEES AGAINST A VICTORIOUS DEFENDANT!!

IOW: it is all about the money for the lawyers.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

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.

It's a little early to be making that claim.

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."

Now that is funny.

Overall I am encouraged to see that these groups are pausing to consider the weakness of some of their arguments. You don't hear the other side starting off with "I just want to say how much I love and care for Christians and other morality oriented people..." If you start off professing your great love for homosexuals you have lost the argument before you even make it. Besides, if you love the sinner but not the sin then you do not profess love while defining the person by their sinful deed. You love people, not homosexuals, murderers, adulters, child rapists, liars, cheaters, etc... It's just out of step to profess love for a group based on their behavior and then think you are going to be able to win an argument against their behavior. "I love liars but I think lying is wrong" is just weird and contradictory. That's essentially what our side has been saying for a long time. Imagine, "I love rapists but I think rape is wrong."

The "you hate us" argument from the other side is a brilliant ploy to distract us from the issue at hand. Thus far it has worked like a charm. But true love means, as wonderfully stated in the article, that you have the persons best interests at heart, and that you speak the truth to them. Indifference to the fate of the sinner is not love. And love without truth is not real love. But bottom line, this is not an issue of love and hate -- nice try. Nor is it a civil rights issue. It's not even solely a religious issue. It's an issue about truth, nature, and morality. Refusing to pretend things are equal that are fundamentally and obviously not equal is not discrimination; it's critical thinking skills.

[gondramB]

"First of all, why should homosexuals have "domestic partnerships" and not three men? Three women? Two women and a man? etcetc. Or a brother and sister? Aunt and nephew? Why should same sex sexual practices be rewarded and other sexual affinities (such as a threesome) not be? Why should platonic relationships not be so rewarded?"

Are you talking about governmnet rewards? Why would we reward those -there is no reason to. I have brown hair and live with a red head - there is no reason for the goverment to reward us. But if we choose to form a household we have that right. Now as it happens we are male/female married couple so that was just an example.

[nmh]

Yeah, I DESTEST the "gay agenda" even MORE than they DETEST MORAL VALUES. Since I'm not a leftist, according to the left, I SHOULD NOT VOICE this. LOL!!!

[sasafras]

" I do not think consensual sexual relationships between a father and his adult daughter should be illegal. "

Well then you are either a member of the United Church of Christ or you could become one. Satanism would also be a very good choice as well. This is how they think you will be welcomed with open arms.

Side note it is obvious that you are also an anarchist. Apparantly all behavior among consenting adults is ok with you. The hidden little secret that you dont get (you probably dont have kids or were absent in their rearing) is that all this behavior affects them. If it affects them then it will affect our society. No rules, no constraints no limits. Everything is ok as long as it makes you feel good. Dont expect a functioning society for very long - radical islam looks for societies like this that have instituted PC intolerant tolerance - because they know that you would never restrict their ability to persecute you.

[Aquinasfan]

The traditional or natural family is one of the targets of the political Left

It's also the primary target of Satan. The family, which is formed in the image of the Trinity, also represents the heart of society. As the family goes, so goes society.

[sageb1]

Did anyone see this guy on O'Reilly last night? Just wondering. I don't really know anything about the group. Battle Cry

[gondramB]

"The sale of heroin between two consenting individuals in private currently constitutes a felony. Is it your point that government has no authority (power) to dictate that this behavior is illegal?

Bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, incest, prostitution, etc., can also take place in private among consenting adults. Is it your point that government has no authority (power) to dictate that this behavior is illegal"

I think the government has over stepped on drug laws but not where heroin is involved. Heroin use causes so much other crime that it constitutes a clear and present danger and is correctly regulated under the power granted by the general welfare clause.

Relationships between adults are legal as long as they don't involve marrying more than one person of the opposite sex.

I do not think prostitution should be illegal. much of the driving force for anti-prostituion laws these days is from feminists who equate it with men subjugating women.

[AZ_Cowboy]

Not all Republicans. Most people don't have any problem at all. You have a few screwballs on here who sneer and whine alternatively. I don't know where their allegiances are, and I really don't care.

I will say that they're very fond of insulting other people and then accusing other people of lowering the debate by engaging in name-calling.

I am still amazed by the number of people who are so deeply concerned by what the press writes about us or what the opposition thinks (more or less one in the same. I really don't give a rip, and even if the whiners could purge all the people they thought hurt the party image, the line in the press (and the opposition) would be identical.

In the meantime, I am looking for the validation of Campion's Law. The Taliban comparison will be along shortly. It almost was already.