The United Way's Boy Scout Fetish

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | May 19, 2003 | Michael Reagan

[ArGee]

Are our "unalienable" rights only those which are enumerated in the Constitution?

No. They are those granted to us by G-d. They are self-existent, not created by the whim of the majority.

Of course, absent a new Moses, it is always difficult to determine what G-d hath said in specific situations. That is why our Republic requires persuasion, debate, and vote for representatives who then vote on issues.

But our Republic was meant to govern those who had internal morality, and a specific internal morality which even the Deist Jefferson recognized as "eternally true." The experiment will fail if we become a nation who believes that everything is equally true and the only thing that matters is the whim of the majority.

Shalom.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Ping

No logical comeback in defense of your homosexual propaganda talking points Hummm???

[Clint N. Suhks]

Mute means silent. Moot means meaningless. Points are moot, but rarely mute.

Grammer Alert! Grammer Alert!

Just kidding, point taken. It was late...

[ArGee]

The only way a SAD defender can reply is with illogical comebacks. For a specific example:

This thread is specifically about SADs wanting to become leaders of the Boy Scouts of America. SAD defenders immediately want to ask what private, consensual sex between two adults has to do with anything. We are talking about a public issue regarding boys - all of whom are under 18 - but the SAD defenders move back to the same tired argument.

The key issue is whether SADs are mentally disturbed or not. If they are, then the proper, compassionate response is to encourage them to seek help and to love them through the help. It is not to encourage them to practice their disturbed behavior more and more openly. If they are not, then the proper response is to keep your own kids safe.

Along those lines, I understand that the disturbance can be very mild and have minimal impact on their ability to integrate into our society. The idea that people with mild mental illness should not be treated for their own good lead to the release of many from mental institutions who now flood our cities with homeless. It is very libertarian, and very bad law.

Shalom.

[Clint N. Suhks]

that you have never engaged in either sexual activity which defines "sodomy" with either a lover, or a spouse--then you are equally as guilty as homosexuals by Jefferson's definition, and you qualify as a sodomite yourself.

Did you bump your head before your wrote this? In Jefferson’s time sodomy pertained to ONE thing…homosexual intercourse. Funny though, since you so desperately want to compare homosexual pathology to a normal man/woman relationship exactly how are they the same?

[Clint N. Suhks]

If they are, then the proper, compassionate response is to encourage them to seek help and to love them through the help.

I agree, but Liberaltarians for example are willing to forgo drug laws and then on the other hand being fiscally conservative would probably forgo funding of drug treatment centers. The result being streets full of addicts along side all the mentally ill left over from Kennedy’s administration. (You know the people need to be responsible for them selves’ Liberaltarian mantra.) Same with homosexuals; let them devastate a society based on the family while the Liberaltarians sit in their vacuum saying it doesn’t effect me.

Is that cynical enough?

[Sabertooth]

Rather than respond piecemeal, I'll answer your several posts in one...

Not in the case of Texas and other States where engaging in the act of sodomy is criminalized for some, and permitted for others, I don't recall either the Bible, or Thomas Jefferson saying that sodomy was OK with someone of the opposite sex, as a matter of fact, in the quote you yourself provided, Jefferson explicitly denounces these actions "with man or woman".

The Bible doesn't actually go into detail about sex acts between either the opposite, or the same sex. The Bible proscribes, in general terms, all sorts of sexual activity. Therefore, we don't have an unalienable right to anything proscribed.

You are correct about Jefferson, but all that means is that the States also retain the power to outlaw certain behavior between members of the opposite sex. We accept this in principle when we accept the power of the States to outlaw, for example, prostitution, polygamy, and adult incest.

Laws need to apply equally, to all citizens if we are to avoid the sorts of challenges being routinely raised by gay activists.

Laws against homosexual acts do apply equally to everyone.

Like murder or rape, homosexual identity is defined by behavior, not by anything intrinsic in an individual's creation. To say that laws against homosexual acts apply unfairly to homosexuals is as pointless as saying that laws against rape and murder apply unfairly to rapists and murderers.

If you want to make sodomy illegal, then make it illegal for everyone and quit giving the gay lobby something to wave around and shout out "discrimination".

I haven't given the homosexuals any legitimate complaint. They are not created, their behavior is an acquired obsession.

By the way, nice try at diverting from the true point of the Declaration, I am not buying into it. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"...the pursuit of happiness. While engaging in homosexual behavior may not be your idea of pursuing happiness, it is to a homosexual. That you don't believe that is really of very little consequence to the law.

Again, your argument is with Jefferson. His opinions on what were rights and what could be considered crimes are germane to the "true point of the Declaration," pro-homosexual sophistry notwithstanding.

I have no problem with Jefferson, but you brought him up, so I wondered how you fared in his light.

I realize that bringing up Jefferson in a discussion of unalienable rights might appear jarring to some, but they shouldn't allow themselves to be so easily distracted.

I guess by your answer that you are in fact a sodomite…

It appears that more than one Freeper believes he has "the gift."

Double talk!

My favorite.

This is not news.

Jefferson did not try to raise his opinion on what to do about sodomites to the level of law.

You'd better re-read the link, Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments, because that's exactly what the author of the Declaration of Independence was proposing.

Thomas Jefferson clearly didn't believe that we are endowed by our Creator with an unalienable right to sodomy, and you appear to believe otherwise.

Here's something else you missed…

The fantastical idea of virtue and the public good being a sufficient security to the state against the commission of crimes, which you say you have heard insisted on by some, I assure you was never mine. It is only the sanguinary hue of our penal laws which I meant to object to. Punishments I know are necessary, and I would provide them, strict and inflexible, but proportioned to the crime. Death might be inflicted for murther and perhaps for treason if you would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery &c. punish by castration.
Thomas Jefferson - 1776

Yes, you have a problem with Jefferson.

[Taiwan Bocks]

I'm flattered to be confused by your thumbs up thumbs down art effort.

Christ was pretty clear,
black or white,
with me or not,
grace and love yes Yes YES, but for the sinner, not the sinner's behavior (adultery, faggotry, idolotry, murder, etc.)

By the way, where are you?

[ArGee]

To say that laws against homosexual acts apply unfairly to homosexuals is as pointless as saying that laws against rape and murder apply unfairly to rapists and murderers.

Bears repeating bump.

Shalom.

[Cultural Jihad]

To say that laws against homosexual acts apply unfairly to homosexuals is as pointless as saying that laws against rape and murder apply unfairly to rapists and murderers.

Luis has fallen victim to the Democrat's cruel agenda of equating sexual deviants with Latinos, or Asians, or Blacks. There is no discrimination at all in the law. These deviant 'behavioral-minorities' are free to get married and enjoy morally-licit relations if they want to. There are only two sexes, not four or six or eight.

[breakem]

All rights even the unalienable have some restriction and therin lies the rub. You could define your pursuit of happeness as murdering and innocent person. That wouldn't be kosher.

No matter how well you treat your dog and how many times it may hump on your leg, there is no way to test the "consent " of the dog even if both of you are wagging you tail.

Consent is important to ascertain because free people would not be forced into the behavior. They would participate freely and that is the relationship.

I believe that children do not have the same rights as adults. They are subservient to their parents. The government can serve as a balance to ensure that parents do not abuse their children. I don't know the best age for "consent," but I know from a legal and societal standpoint ther seems to need to be one to determine when their rights are obtained.

[Cultural Jihad]

... in light of the fact that homosexuality has been around since the dawn of man, AIDS would have been around long before the first reported cases in the 1970's.

While sexual deviants have always been around, they have always historically suffered terribly as a result of their evil deeds. It used to be syphilis, and other diseases. Today it is AIDS, and other diseases. A homosexual without a self-inflicted disease: the rare exception which proves the general rule on how dangerous they are to themselves and to society.

You are free to image there are supposed logical flaws in the argument for religious morality. In fact, that's the way it's built, to allow for a leap of faith.

[ArGee]

Consent is important to ascertain because free people would not be forced into the behavior. They would participate freely and that is the relationship.

Actually, free people consent to be forced all the time. I am forced to pay higher taxes than I want. I consent to submit to this force for the good of the whole. But my point is still valid, you only use consent at the moment because it suits you. You have already admitted that consent is not required when it does not suit you (as with children and discipline).

The unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness had an implied "moral" on each of them. This is because the moral law was well recognized as the only rational basis for a free society. The implication was sufficient because, when written, there was one nationally recognized morality (and it was presumed to be a natural law that did not need to be argued). Today we don't have that nationally recognized morality, and we have to argue against stupid notions such as "gays are like straights only different."

Gays are not like straights only different. They are disturbed. Their lifestyle is destructive and should be discouraged. And they should not have opportunities to share their filth with our children.

Shalom.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Dude, sexually transmitted diseases know no gender, and are not gender-specific. All you are saying is that they get the same diseases that we get.

Get a grip.

I don't have a problem with religious morality, until you start demanding the government to govern based on religious morality.

To ask the government to do that, is to violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Luis has fallen victim to the Democrat's cruel agenda..."

And you are rapidly descending into the TLBSHOW Twilight Zone.

I don't build my beliefs based on a political party line, I build them through thought and observation, then I identify that party which most closely resembles the majority of my ideas.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Laws against homosexual acts do apply equally to everyone."

Bunk.

Laws against homosexual acts do not apply to me, they apply to people who would be inclined to engage in homosexual acts. If they applied to everyone, you wouldn't need to use "homosexual" as a qualifier.

In enacting the law, and by clearly stating that sodomy will only be considered a crime when engaged in by people of the same sex, homosexuals, the law itself creates a sub-segment of society, and uses the gender of the individuals involved in the act to differentiate between criminal activity and permitted activity.

In the eyes of the law, when it comes to crimes, we are all simply citizens. Not male citizens vs. female citizens.

Of course, I could be wrong, and you could prove me wrong by pointing out any and all other laws where the act, actions, or behavior which are deemed to be anti-social or destructive, are legal for some, and not legal for others.

Your error on this statement is the fact that you have not read the Texas Statutes; they clearly indicate that contact between one person's anal or oral cavity, and another person's genitalia is considered to be "deviant sexual intercourse", then the make it illegal for homosexuals to engage in it, and perfectly fine for the rest of the citizenry to engage in "deviant sexual intercourse".

[Cultural Jihad]

To ask the government to do that, is to violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Of course, you have that backwards. To prohibit laws based upon the kindness of morality is to infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of those who choose to practice their religion, an important part of which is in working to transform the world to conform it with the will of God. While Jehovah's Witnesses may elect to refrain from voting or sitting on juries, the irreligious, the socialists, the humanists, the atheists, and the libertines will just have to learn to lump it if we are to have a Free Republic. Otherwise, you would be forced to try to explain how a corrupt people would ever want to install non-corrupt leaders into high office.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military

"Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private virtue, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics." -John Adams

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." -Thomas Jefferson

"We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." -James Madison

"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security." -Samuel Adams

"[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen onto any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man." -Samuel Adams

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom...go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels nor arms. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -Samuel Adams

"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." -William Penn

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." -Patrick Henry

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined," -Patrick Henry

"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated." -Thomas Paine; 1776

"[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us, that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity." -Daniel Webster

"No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain blessings. Much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to, so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass. The Great Governor of the Universe has led us too long and too far to forsake us in the midst of it. We may, now and then, get bewildered; but I hope and trust that there is good sense and virtue enough left to recover the right path. " -George Washington

[Cultural Jihad]

Bunk. According to your illogic, laws against rape somehow discriminate against men, since women are never charged with rape. Laws against poaching discriminate against carnivores, since vegans are never charged. Of course your whiny liberal list of infringements can go on and on. Laws against speeding discriminate against those with no cars. Laws against pick-pocketing discriminate against people with arms, since the armless are never charged.

Give Oprah a call; perhaps she will buy into your liberal whine.

[dsc]

"sexually transmitted diseases know no gender, and are not gender-specific. All you are saying is that they get the same diseases that we get."

Actually, there are physiological reasons that anal intercourse is a much more efficient route for AIDS infection than normal or oral intercourse.

Transmission of AIDS from woman to man through normal intercourse is extremely rare. This is why that "explosion of AIDS among heterosexuals" that the pervofascists have been predicting for almost 20 years has yet to occur.

(And before somebody mentions "Africa," (a) heterosexual anal intercourse has been a means of birth control there forever; and (b) the vast majority of the AIDS cases in Africa are diagnosed without ever performing a blood test, based solely on symptoms.)

Further, the promiscuity, heedlessness, and self-destructive impulses of SSAD sufferers result in more transmission of STDs among them than among any other group.

[Luis Gonzalez]

A GLOBAL BATTLE: AIDS epidemic gains ground and victims

HIV invading more countries, infecting as many women as men

November 27, 2002

FREE PRESS NEWS SERVICES

LONDON -- For the first time since scientists discovered AIDS more than two decades ago, as many women as men are infected with HIV, a UN report says.

ALL ABOUT AIDS/HIV

The toll:

• Deaths: 24 million since 1981.

• Infected: By the end of this year, 42 million people globally will have HIV, the virus that leads to AIDS. In 2002, 5 million people have been infected so far. The infection rate is one person for about every 143 people on Earth.

• Victims: Women make up half the epidemic. Some African countries report nearly 3 in 5 AIDS victims are women.

• Children orphaned: about 14 million.

• Worst case: South Africa has more people living with HIV and AIDS than any other country. Experts predict that India soon may overtake South Africa as the country with the most infected people.

  The facts:

• HIV is found in semen, blood, breast milk and other body fluids.

• Transmission occurs through sexual contact, blood transfusions, needle-sharing, from pregnant women to the fetus and through an infected mother nursing her baby.

• There is no known cure. Some drugs have prolonged the lives of victims in countries that can afford the medicines.

  Source: Reuters

Driving the increase among women is the explosive rise in heterosexual transmission in sub-Saharan Africa, the report said. An estimated 58 percent of HIV-infected adults in the region are women.

"The face of AIDS is clearly a female face in sub-Saharan Africa," said Peter Piot, executive director of the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, known as UNAIDS. "We are far away from the gay white man disease it used to be in 1980s."

The global report, by UNAIDS and the World Health Organization, estimated that 42 million people have HIV or AIDS, that 5 million will be infected in 2002 and that 3.1 million will die of AIDS this year.

In the coming few years, according to the report, the death toll is expected to rise substantially unless health systems in the poor world are substantially improved and those living in poverty are given access to the life-extending anti-retroviral drugs.

Piot said heterosexual transmission is on the rise on every continent, posing a greater risk of rapidly spreading the disease simply because the population of heterosexuals with HIV is far larger than the population of gay men and intravenous-drug users.

The report found that the fastest-growing AIDS epidemic was in eastern Europe and the central Asian republics.

In some places that had almost no AIDS cases, the epidemic seemed to take root overnight. Uzbekistan, for instance, reported 620 new infections in the first six months of 2002, or six times the number of new infections from the same time period a year earlier.

In China, where AIDS was almost nonexistent a few years ago, there are now 1 million people with HIV.

But there are signs of hope. The report said prevention programs appear to be working in the areas where they have been set up.

Piot cited South Africa, where HIV infections among pregnant teenage girls fell 25 percent between 1998 and 2001. In Uganda, the number of new HIV infections has been dropping every year for the past 10 years, he said.

But the worst in sub-Saharan Africa still is coming. "The AIDS death toll on the continent is expected to continue rising, before peaking around the end of this decade," the report said. "This means that the worst of the epidemic's impact on those societies will be felt in the course of the next decade and beyond."

The report also highlights that 90 percent of Africans are not infected to illustrate that much is at stake in preventing the spread of AIDS.