The United Way's Boy Scout Fetish

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

[Luis Gonzalez]

The dictionary definers entitlement as: "A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group", among other definitions. That's were you once again fall short.

The question is not whether they will be granted anything by you, the government, or society at large, but rather whether you, the government, or society have the right to modify their actions, specially when those actions are causing no harm other than to your sensitivities.

Far as I can tell, you don't have a constitutional right not to be disgusted by the actions of others.

[Roscoe]

The dictionary definers entitlement as: "A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group"

Such as legally protected sexual perversions. You actually thought you were making a point?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Legally protected"?

I guess you wish to define "oerversions" for everyone, and they would be anything that someone else does that you don't approve of.

You may approve of pornography, and statistically speaking you probably enjoy pronographic movies or magazines on occassion.

Or your particular perversion is sodomy with your wife or significant other, or maybe even a little bondage, S & M, or even role-playing.

We all have our "perversions" if we are to define sex by strictly Puritan standards, we just don't want other people to have theirs.

[Roscoe]

anything that someone else does that you don't approve

Sodomy equals necktie patterns?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not quite.

You should get life in jail for wearing that.

[TaxRelief]

...obsessing with homosexuality is a sign of some deep-seated issues

Actually, it's not: They just told you that to make you feel better when you felt hated. Sorry, I don't mean to hurt your feelings but someone had to tell you the truth sooner or later.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Actually, it's not: They just told you that to make you feel better when you felt hated."

I've suspected the truth all along, and now, you've finally outted me.

I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

[Jorge]

"Anybody, no matter how opposed they are to such behavior should also have the sense to know it is completely unecessary and beyond socially acceptable norms to broadcast graphic descriptions of such acts in public forums."

I disagree - and I would think ministers would discuss such topics from the pulpit if they believed that the congregation needed to know.

Well most ministers would disagree with you..because there are no mainstream Christian ministers who engage in broadcasting the sort of sickening vile descriptions of sexual depravity we have seen posted on these board.

Jesus NEVER engaged in graphic descriptions of sexual immorality...and in fact never even spoke of homosexuality..because it was unnecessary.

[dsc]

"Answer the question."

The question doesn't deserve an answer, as has been amply demonstrated in several posts. It is a red herring, a stalking horse, a straw man, a time-wasting irrelevancy.

"The actual issue beoing discussed is whether there should be laws against homosexual sodomy"

The actual issue being discussed was the efforts of pervofascist activists to use the power of law to force access to the objects of their disordered lusts.

"acts are criminalized when the commission af that act violates one person's rights in one way or another."

That is a premise that you are accepting as a self-evident truth. However, I and many others believe that we may consider criminalizing acts if they are destructive of some common good. Of course, acts that are destructive of the common weal violate the rights of everyone, not just "one person."

"There a sea of difference"

Actually, there isn't, but one must be willing to look past a single straw man argument to see the interconnectedness.

When you legalize homosexual activity, you legitimize it. When you legitimize it, you undercut your moral authority to oppose the rest of the pervofascist agenda.

"What you will not understand"

Don't come the rational pedant with me, matey. You're the one whose mind is closed.

"is that criminalizing sodomy based on little more than your feelings on the subject"

And there's the demonstration. There are many good and sufficient reasons to criminalize homosexual acts, but you can't even allow that line of reasoning to impinge upon your consciousness. Instead, you close your mind to their existence and pretend that your opponents are motivated by "little more than (their) feelings." For shame.

"will simply add fuel to the activist agenda."

The pervofascist agenda will only be defeated by opposing it; never by appeasing the disordered individuals who promote it.

"Nothing you can do has the power to overcome an American citizen's rights under the Constitution"

There is no Constitutional right to engage in homosexual acts. Or in incest, adultery, or even consensual fornication, and nothing you can do has the power to create one.

"Concentrate on the things that matter"

Everything matters that tends toward a conclusion that there is nothing wrong with committing homosexual acts.

"and not on the no-win fights."

No-win's butt. My sons will live to see homosexual acts illegal in all 50 states.

"If you say "no" to any sexual education beingh taught in school then you will defeat the "gay" lobby demanding that homosexual sex be taught alongside heterosexual sex, without providing them with the strawman of "discrimination"."

Utter buncombe. They sneak it in disguised as "diversity," "tolerance," or "AIDS awareness."

"That's just one example out of many."

Just one of the many errors in reasoning you are making.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"My sons will live to see homosexual acts illegal in all 50 states."

[Taiwan Bocks]

Are you saying, Mr. Hide and Seek,

faggots want to just be scout leaders?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Putting words into my mouth is just a sign that you have conceeded the argument.

I never said that.

You have conceeded the argument by resorting to making up things I've never said.

[ArGee]

We all have our "perversions" if we are to define sex by strictly Puritan standards, we just don't want other people to have theirs.

Words mean things. To pervert something means to change it from its original intention.

Homoerotic activity is a perversion because it perverts the intention(s) of sexual behavior. Only if you believe the universe is not designed can you believe that homoerotic acticity is not a perversion. But if you believe that, then no erotic activitiy is a perversion since there is no design.

Don't confuse a person's "perversions" with a person's "preferences." This degeneration of language is dangerous.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Well most ministers would disagree with you..because there are no mainstream Christian ministers who engage in broadcasting the sort of sickening vile descriptions of sexual depravity we have seen posted on these board.

Can you please provide a link. :)

Ok, but please don't overgeneralize. Ministers deal in the truth. There are those who are more interested in keeping the pews full and the donations flowing, but there are many who tell the truth regardless. I don't know of any study that has been done to tell which group has the greater numbers, and I don't know of any way to make such a study unbiased.

Jesus NEVER engaged in graphic descriptions of sexual immorality...and in fact never even spoke of homosexuality..because it was unnecessary.

Jesus NEVER had to. He did discuss those who sacrificed their children to foreign gods by burning them to death. That's not something we have to deal with in this day and age. We have to deal with people who engage in fisting, and who try to teach school children how to do the same. If you're sitting around thinking that queer love is just like straight love, you might need some graphic descriptions to help you make the distinction.

Jesus did know how to call a spade a spade. See Matthew 23.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

That is a premise that you are accepting as a self-evident truth. However, I and many others believe that we may consider criminalizing acts if they are destructive of some common good. Of course, acts that are destructive of the common weal violate the rights of everyone, not just "one person."

The correct concept here, and I believe this is the way the Bible portrays it, is one of a cancer. You are successful in treating a cancer if you remove it before it actually starts to harm your body. If you discover a tumor while it is doing no harm to you you have the best chance of discovery. If you wait until it actually does harm your chances of success are very small.

Sin is a cancer, and individual sins corrupt an entire society. If you wait until the society is corrupt, it is too late. Just look at the "greed" of the 1980s and they way it actually hurt thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, when the dot-com bubble burst. Individual sins practiced privately - huge social cost.

The tightrope we walk is understanding which of these we can impact by public policy and law, and which we can't.

Homosexual activity is not any near the tightrope. It is way off to the left. That's why it has been illegal in nearly every society in the history of mankind. It is dangerous to let people continue in that sin, even privately. It eventually becomes public and harms a society. Why? That's philosophizing, but if you ask me, it's because those who hate themselves must look outside themselves for acceptance. At least that's probably the way the Act-Up movement started.

On a related note, I have discovered that there are many Yahoo clubs devoted to encouraging people to get fat. I mean chearleeding for people who gain over 300 pounds. Can you see any reason for that? I can only see the reason I noted in the previous paragraph.

Shalom.

[frogandtoad]

Leaving aside all political or political correctness issues, why would anyone want to give to United Way in the first place. They collect a cut from all donations to finance their operations and high payroll. So, if say, you give $100.00 thru United Way to the red Cross, United Way keeps about 15 to 20 percent, and the red cross only gets 80 to 85 dollars. If you give directly to the Red Cross, not using United Way, the Red cross get the full 100 dollars.

[FreePaul]

In the scenario you mention almost none of your money would go to the Red Cross. The percent of contributions to each recipient is determined ahead of time. If 100% of the contributors designated one agency it wouldn't make any difference. The UF says that they give your contribution to the designee but they don't tell you that they just give more of other's contributions to the rest. They will lie about this if you let them.

[Taiwan Bocks]

Mr. Hide and Seek, you get your coveted debate trophy, congradulations.

For who can do battle with your 78-sided shield of deflection and subterfuge.

Meanwhile you support the homosexual agenda.

Meanwhile you want boy scouts to be fondled.

Yes, as you say it, you win.

Congradulations, go eat a banana split.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Meanwhile, you lie and attribute things to me that I've never said because your feeble mind can only handle monochromatic thinking.

Loser.

[Jorge]

"Jesus NEVER engaged in graphic descriptions of sexual immorality...and in fact never even spoke of homosexuality..because it was unnecessary."

Jesus NEVER had to.

My point exactly.

He did discuss those who sacrificed their children to foreign gods by burning them to death. That's not something we have to deal with in this day and age. We have to deal with people who engage in fisting, and who try to teach school children how to do the same. If you're sitting around thinking that queer love is just like straight love, you might need some graphic descriptions to help you make the distinction.

You actually think homosexuality is some modern activity that Jesus didn't have to talk about back in his day?

The fact is homosexuality is acknowledged in the OLD Testament..long before Jesus. The Bible speaks of drag queens and cross dressers in the Old Testament.
Jesus didn't mention incest and bestiality either.

The idea that people now need graphic descriptions of things that have gone on for 1,000s of years is silly.

Jesus didn't talk about things that were simply unspeakable and anybody who had any sense knew it.

Those who broadcast this sort of vulgar garbage on these boards are clearly not doing so in the name of holiness...but out of their desire to throw mud at those they have personal hatred for.

Jesus did know how to call a spade a spade. See Matthew 23.

You read Matthew 23. And then show me where Jesus described filthy vile acts of sexual perversion in any of His sermons.
You can't. Because He didn't.