Posted on 10/10/2007 11:14:06 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
After losing the large majority of battles for same-sex marriage in states and realizing that American people are still very much opposed to such homosexual unions, those who support the overall homosexual agenda have put more focus on an incremental strategy. Homosexual activists, by passing so-called federal "hate crimes" and "employment protection" laws, hope to have the same success they have had on the local and state level of using the court system and unelected bureaucrats to silence their loudest critics – Christians.
In 2001, a former construction engineer and Coast Guard reservist decided that he would rather be a woman and spent $25,000 to make that happen. Hoping to offset costs of the procedure, the newly self-made "woman" filed with the Internal Revenue Service for a tax exemption of $5,000, which the tax agency originally granted her. After further review, the IRS demanded that the money be paid since, pursuant to current law, most cosmetic surgery is not allowed.
The IRS memo on the case cited 1990 Senate legislation that set limits on the definition of cosmetic surgery, saying deductions are not allowed for "any procedure which is directed at improving the patient's appearance and doesn't meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or disease."
Clearly, a sex change operation does not fit under any of the qualifications set forth. However, the "woman" has refused to pay the money and is suing the IRS. This is not a unique situation. Increasingly, gay advocacy groups are turning to sympathetic judges and equally amenable bureaucrats to change culture by twisting laws that were passed in name of "fairness" and "equality."
Take the case of the Ocean Grove Camp Ground in New Jersey, which was founded and has been privately owned by Methodist organization since 1870.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Robbing Peter or removing peter?
“Equal rights” is nothing but liberal doublespeak. What the libs mean to say is “equal enslavement”, but they know using the word enslavement would destroy their future chances of ruling over us all, so they use another phrase that means the same as their intended phrase, hence doublespeak.
“The IRS memo on the case cited 1990 Senate legislation that set limits on the definition of cosmetic surgery, saying deductions are not allowed for “any procedure which is directed at improving the patient’s appearance and doesn’t meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or disease.”
Clearly, a sex change operation does not fit under any of the qualifications set forth. However, the “woman” has refused to pay the money and is suing the IRS. This is not a unique situation. Increasingly, gay advocacy groups are turning to sympathetic judges and equally amenable bureaucrats to change culture by twisting laws that were passed in name of “fairness” and “equality.” “
This topic has to fall under your Moral Absoultes ping list (tax breaks for sex change operations), doesn’t it?
2) In order for a people to be truly free, they have to have the right to embrace certain behaviors and reject certain others. The decision may be made on the basis of a moral value set, or for purely practical reasons, or for any combination of the two.
3) Public attitudes toward homosexuality are virtually universal; every culture rejects the lifestyle as perverse and decadent. It is, for obvious reasons, an affront to nature, in that it produces nothing more than immediate gratification, a byproduct of the sexual experience but never its primary purpose, which is procreation. Injunctions against homosexuality go back thousands of years and cross almost all cultural lines. Tolerance of homosexuality is a relatively recent phenomenon. Rejection of homosexuality served its purpose well; it forced people to examine sex not as an end but as a means toward an end. Tolerance of homosexuality has provided little or no benefit to society at large, although it has certainly eased the lives of homosexuals, which in turn encourages that activity.
4) Homosexuals do not merit any special protections under our laws for all the above reasons. There is no sound legal or moral argument in favor of singling them out.
My husband is a government employee, he received an email yesterday pronouncing Thursday, Oct 11th to be “NATIONAL COMING OUT DAY”. The agency he works for actually promotes perversion with tax payer dollars. If you speak out they send you through “diversity training”.
It’s the Marxist ploy to remove Church Autonomy. The left interprets the gospel as ‘hate speech’ because it condemns their behavior.
I wonder why opponents of homosexuality can’t file for protection from this kind of hostile work environment. To my way of thinking, this is no different than a black man being forced to work in an environment that promotes racism. Or a woman being subjected to off-color humor that makes her uncomfortable. If I am an employee of a company, then I am a part of that company and the company’s actions reflect on me just as my actions reflect on it. The company has no right to endorse such reprehensible behavior in my name, or to force me to tolerate such perversion when it makes me uncomfortable.
The Gospel as hate speech? No way! Although one could make the same case about the OT and not sound all that foolish with proper citation. Certainly there are places where the ideas of Jesus are in conflict with things written in the last three books of the Pentateuch.
If a promising young conservative come onto the radar. They are targeting them before they can become a national threat, finding out what issues could sink them and pouring resources into bringing that to fruition.
Robbing Peter to Ru Paul
I remember reading Jack Straw comment on how far Britain had some as a civilization in the past 10 years in creating “hate” speech laws to silence those who criticized homosexual behavior. If by how far, he meant in the wrong direction, we might reach agreement. But that’s not at all what he implied.
Frankly, it just shows the degree to which British society has degraded. To step from Victorain times where it might be improper to being over-affectionate with the wife by your side to embracing two men embracing. It’s an embarassment to civilization, frankly.
I’ll note that gay marriage has not existed in any society on earth through all of known history save in the past 10 years in secular states so wholly broken as to be incapable of doing something so basic as reproducing the next generation.
If he really coined it, that title for the column is wittiest I’ve seen in a while.
Ever notice how much lefties freak out on anyone who remotely seems to be passing judgement on anyone?
I don't have any friends who are crack addicts because I have judged crack addicts in a certain light and decided not to befriend any. In their world I would be best buddies with criminals and junkies and all sorts of people, regardless of if they steal from me, backstab me, or otherwise cause me harm.
Therein lies their logic, namely there isn't any.
Equality needs totalitarianism to be effective, since individuals, beliefs, ideas, and groups are by their nature unequal in one aspect or another. Yes, we are born equal, but after that, it’s a combination of a crap shoot and your own effort.
On the other side, there is liberty. Liberty leads to unequal outcomes because individuals, beliefs, ideas, and groups are by their nature unequal in one aspect or another. Yes, we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, but how and if we get to live freely and express those rights is a combination of a crap shoot and your own effort.
I’m choosing liberty.
I can’t think of any solutions to this. Does anyone have any ideas?
An excellent choice! But, be careful; some will accuse you of not being conservative enough.
>>I can’t think of any solutions to this. Does anyone have any ideas?<<
Sadly, the only solution I can think of is experience. Some community or state or nation will have to experience a period of gay-led totalitarian terror in order for the rest of us to understand the difference between tolerance and acquiesence.
You beat me to it. I call rights (as defined by liberal fascists) as meaning special privileges. Minorities and women often receive special privileges over more qualified applicants. Gays want special privileges to cover their behavior including forcing others to accept it.
We already have rights, real rights under the Constitution. Liberals would be better served reading that document instead of trying to burn it.
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.