Religious Conservatives Slam 'Gay Agenda,' ACLU

CNSNews.com ^ | March 28 2006 | Randy Hall

[sasafras]

""We also don't want the kids to look like that banjo player in "Deliverance"."\

Absolutely. Best to all - off to work."

Or to have VD, STDs, or AIDS or no control of your bowell movements due to homosexual sex.

[Heartofsong83]

I'm sure many Democrats share the views of these groups listed - that agenda is limited to the MoveOn.org fringe...

[sasafras]

"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.

How does private behavior between consenting adults affect kids? If the behavior remains behind closed doors, how will kids even know about it? "

Oh come on - thats like saying if a tree fall in the woods will it make a noise. Are you really that ignorant? We are not talking about private affairs - if that was the case we wouldnt even be discussing it. Is that what you see around you? This is the real world try basing your facts on what is happening today - not what you think it would be like if you lived in another dimension.

Public recognition and acceptance is the issue here. We are not talking about criminalizing thought - as you suggest. Be real

[Lucky Dog]

It appears that you do not object in principle to government regulation of private behavior between consenting adults. It seems that you think that the standard you propose for such regulation, or its absence, is simply better than that proposed by others. Is this a correct statement of your position?

No. I am saying it takes an overwhelming public interest to over ride privacy. For example I have a right to be secure and private in my home but with clear evidence that I'm using the home for criminal activity and a warrant (or a time sensitive emergency) the police can over ride that right to privacy.

If I understood you, logically, your answer appears to contradict itself. Your standard is, in your words, overwhelming public interest to over ride privacy.

If you subscribe to any government regulation of private behavior between consenting adults , then, logically, the only remaining issue is under what circumstances should such regulation occur. The fact that your standard is overwhelming public interest to over ride privacy is, in reality, no better founded in principle or logic than that proposed by those who would demand government regulation of homosexual behavior.

Your counter argument?

[Aquinasfan]

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.

Great points.

[Antoninus]

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.

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.

[cspackler]

I did answer but I didn't put a period after it so it may have been unclear. I said "Nope". There are all kinds of restrictions on marriage in addition to the gender restriction. They are all designed to provide the best environment to raise children. For example banning incest and requiring VD tests... These are valid restrictions.

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?

And, if you plan to argue the whole birth-defect point, what if one is incapable of having children? Is it OK then?

[Antoninus]

Quoting a nut who can find anti-Catholic bias in a cloud formation doesn't exactly enhance the author's credibility.

I have to laugh when I see a nut calling someone else a nut.

[Antoninus]

Marriage between people who are too closely related is not legal and that is a good thing.

So you are a legalist, then? If it's legal, it must be ok because otherwise, it wouldn't be legal?

Your sequence of posts on this thread are among the most logically muddled I've seen in a while.

[Potowmack]

We are not talking about private affairs - if that was the case we wouldnt even be discussing it. Is that what you see around you?

I'm not sure what we're talking about. Are we talking about homosexuals engaging in sexual acts in public? No, I've never seen that. The most I've ever seen is two men or two women holding hands, and that was only in gay neighborhoods such as Dupont Circle here in DC.

Public recognition and acceptance is the issue here.

Well, homosexuals exist. Everyone knows that, so I do not see how we could ever hope to prevent children from learning this fact. Anyway, I do not think that simply recognizing the existance of homosexuals harms anyone. Furthermore, there is a difference between acceptance and tolerance. People in this country, for the most part, tolerate homosexuality. They do not, however, accept it.

So, I'm not reallt sure what you are proposing here. Making homosexuality illegal?

[Antoninus]

We also don't want the kids to look like that banjo player in "Deliverance".

Then surely you'd be ok with incestuous marriages, as long as they're also homosexual...

[little jeremiah]

You didn't address my points.

[linda_22003]

Trying to make it from the windowsill to the top of the refrigerator again! ;-D

[DBeers]

Well Stated!

:-)

[ishabibble]

At this moment, I have only anecdotal evidence to offer.

I have a 30 yr. old daughter, M.S. in computer software design, B.S. degree from UMO, married, one child, homeowner,
upper middle class, two income family, etc. My daughter is a lovely, bright and engaging woman. She is also, and always has been, a worker bee. She gets her news exclusively from the Daily Show. Her best friend, Sara, same background, even more success, also watches only the Daily Show for news.
Kaitlin, Wheaton grad, ditto. Suzanne, URI M.S, ditto.
Only Suzanne has the "experimental child" like my daughter.
All the other young women in her crowd are "childfree".

I will try to search for the Rasmussen poll that shows the exact number of 30+ zuppies who get their "hard news" from CC. It was published within the last year.

p.s. My grandson, aka Veteran Commuter, has been in daycare since he ran out of maternity bennies. He even has his own Dunkin' Donuts drive-thru cup. I could just cry.

[Gone GF]

"From the quote, it appears that divorce is out of the question, too."

We have new friends who were both in intolerable first marriages (her first husband was abusive). Both had children from those marriages but they have very successfully combined the two families.

When they moved here they joined what they thought was going to be a great church -- and then folks found out this was a second marriage. Members of the congregation essentially drove them out for "living in sin."

I guess it would be better to raise the kids as single parents?

[linda_22003]

Judging the way other people live is a great sport for some. Maybe they didn't have cable TV in their area.

[napscoordinator]

Whether or not it's a "choice" homosexuality is, very simply, perverted behavior. It needs to be reclassified as criminal conduct and those who practice it should be incarcerated.


Come on. We are trying to stop the homosexual agenda from going crazy. We have to be realistic about it. It will never be criminal again...that ship has sailed. However, what we can't allow is for it to make further gains that is my fight in this now. I don't see putting them in jail realistic.

[Coleus]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200603\POL20060328b.html