Posted on 07/29/2003 11:03:15 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
A new USA Today /CNN /Gallup Survey suggests there is a backlash of public opinion against homosexuality after the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Texas' sodomy law.
It's not surprising.
The decision was widely seen as a judicial push for the agenda of homosexual political activists eager to see their lifestyle not only accepted nationwide but promoted by government and major cultural institutions.
Defenders of the Texas law had contended the ultimate goal of the case was not to end sodomy laws, but to advance the "ambitious agenda" of homosexual activists. Justice Antonin Scalia, in a scathing dissent, agreed.
"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," he wrote.
The public seems to agree as well.
Asked whether same-sex relations between consenting adults should be legal, 48 percent in the new survey said yes, while 46 percent said no.
Prior to the ruling in early May, the ratio peaked at 60 percent in favor, 35 percent opposed. In other words, the ruling may have had just the opposite of its intended effect.
According to the numbers, 49 percent of respondents said homosexuality should not be considered "an acceptable alternative lifestyle," while 46 percent said it should. This marks the first time since 1997 that more people were opposed.
Opposition to civil unions has also risen, according to the poll, even amid recent developments promoting them. WorldNetDaily reported the New York Times recently decided to publish notices of same-sex ceremonies along with its wedding announcements, and the September-October issue of Conde Nast's Bride's magazine currently on newsstands features an article on homosexual weddings.
Fifty-seven percent polled said they opposed civil unions – the most opposition since the question was first asked in 2000 – while 40 percent voiced support.
Recently the Canadian courts decided to recognize homosexual marriages. The California state Assembly's passage of a historic bill that would award virtually all the rights of marriage to homosexual "domestic partners."
Is public opinion still important when the courts are taking the matter out of the hands of the people? You bet it is. In fact, the majority opinion in the historic Supreme Court decision in the Texas case even cited growing public acceptance of homosexuality as a basis of its ruling.
Likewise, on my new radio show this week, I interviewed a spokeswoman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation who said morality is simply a matter for the public to decide through politics.
Asked why polygamists are still getting a tough battle in the courts, she said it is simply because there are not enough polygamists and they are not sufficiently organized to make their case.
She's right. And just as Scalia predicted in his dissent, you can bank on polygamists organizing around the same legal language employed by the homosexual activists. You can bank on incest practitioners organizing along these lines. You can bank on those who want to see reductions in the age of consent organizing along these lines. You can even bank on those who are into bestiality organizing along these lines.
It's coming. That's the future. Just watch the news.
That's how America decides what is right and wrong today – based on public-opinion polls and the clout of narrow, special-interest groups.
The truth is, there is little difference in my eyes between polygamy and homosexuality – except perhaps that there are far more biblical injunctions against homosexuality and in far stronger terms and without any exceptions.
It was once true in America that our laws were based on such things as the Ten Commandments and biblical law. That is no longer the case. Today, it is simply based on which way the wind is blowing. And the wind is to the backs of the homosexual /transsexual /cross-gendered lobby.
Why? Are there no eternal truths anymore? Is there no right and wrong? Is it all just a question of pop-culture whim?
Today, homosexuals not only are a protected class of people based on their sexual behavior, they are a celebrated group of people on television, in movies, in books and in the media. They are portrayed as heroes, quite literally. And what places them in that category is what they do in their bedrooms – and sometimes in public restrooms.
Backlash?
My guess is we ain't seen nothing yet.
Yes, but your unproved assumption is that there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality.
And why would a homosexual want that law enforced?
Wrong.
If I can claim a behavior is something beyond my control, I go from a responsible citizen, to a brute beast that has to be managed by the state. What would the status of Black Americans go to if the majority decided violent behavior is something Black Americans can't control? What about greed to Jews? How about hysterical behavior to women?
American liberty is predicated on responsibility for ones own behavior.
Which brings us back to one of my previous questions: if you were wrong, how could someone prove it to you? Not answering that question is proof you wouldn't appreciate a compelling answer even if it were given.
What standard are you using to define "integrity?" That they don't take cheap shots at you? What differences are you looking for?
The more people try to hysterically paint conservatives as monsters, the more conservatives will demand the truth.
Let's see which outraged group will get "equal time" in the media.
ROFL! It's not a big deal since I'm headed back to school soon; I won't really have time for any relationship.
Since this is a homosexuality thread, I should observe that involuntary celibates ought to investigate bisexuality - it'd double the frequency of rejection!
Define "child" and who are you to say they aren't mature enough to make sexual decisions?I don't have to define child, the state already has. A child cannot vote, own real property, buy alcohol, etc. Our society has a very clear-cut demarcation between what adults can do and what children can do.
The states don't agree on what goes on in the bedroom for teens. Age of consent varies from state to state (14-18). Anyone who has reached "age of consent" can consent to sexual relations with an adult (a person aged over 18).
Additionally, many states have "Romeo & Juliet" execptions to the age of consent that virtually eliminate it. They permit "consensual" relations with another person provided that the partner in the sex act is with 3 or 4 years of the minor. This is true even if the partner is over the age of 18.
So legislatures (a) do continue to legislate what goes on in the bedroom, and (b)permit persons of virtually any age to consent to sex acts.
Of course I can. Here it is:
The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game
More to the point, it's about forcing the rest of society to sanction behavior it finds morally,socially, and philosophically repugnant.
Were they treated differently than heterosexual sodomites? You don't know.
I think it ironic, but not surprising, that you find people arguing for the status quo to be "disingenuous," yet apparently approve of those who practice judicial theater.
Read scripter's link and get back to the thread afterwards and eat humble pie.
Open and transparent are precisely what homosexuals do not want to be. They have had a stated objective from the beginning to NOT let us "straights" know what they do beacause we would be nauseated and sickened.
Their STATED plan has been to gradually introduce themselves, under cover of "gay identity" and "civil rights" until us sheeple started equating sodomy with being born black or brown. Kind of like putting the frog in the pot and gradually heating the water up. By the time the frog notices, it's too late. Well, I think the frogs are noticing and it's not too late!
I think we need to get our terminology straight here, (no pun intended). The homosexual activists have a declared interest in changing the definition of "homosexual" from "one who engages in sex acts with the same gender" to "a gay person" - a community, an identity. There is no such thing as a "gay" person unless you mean a joyful, carefree person. Calling people who (currently) engage in same sex acts "gay" is a tool to get those same-sex acting people to somehow feel a group identity, to further the power of their supposed community. In reality, all that means is to degrade the morality of the general community. It is also a means to equate in the general population's mind a person who (for whatever reason) currently engages in same sex acts with a member of a bona fide group of people such as black people, Filippinos, or women.
The whole idea that some people can be called "gay" or even homosexual is absurd. In fact, the word "homosexual" was coined by a sodomite (much more accurate and descriptive word, just means one who practices sodomy) in Germany, I believe in the late 19th century for the specific purpose of creating a feeling of "special community" among fellow sodomites and especially pederasts.
This is described in researched detail in "The Pink Swastika" by Scott Lively - on the web in its entirety at www.abidingtruth.com.
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.