Posted on 10/03/2001 9:59:43 PM PDT by kattracks
Gay rights are not high on the agenda in Romania, not even where American diplomats are concerned, writes Kate Connolly The fact that the sexual orientation of Michael Guest, America's new ambassador to Romania, triggered such banner headlines, illustrates just how far many Romanians have to go before they accept even the concept of homosexuality, let alone having gay people in their midst. A nationalist group, the Union of the Romanian Hearth, which claims to protect Romanian values, criticised the appointment as an "affront to Romanian traditions". In a letter to the daily Ziua, in which he addressed America, the group's head, Ion Coja wrote: "Through tradition and vocation, Romanians have created a society ... and mentality which puts duty and obligations above anything. The supreme duty of any living being is to procreate." In contrast, most politicians have welcomed the ambassador. They are keen to court the Nato expert who may well speed their entry into the military alliance. Denouncements on homosexuality could jeopardise Romania's chances of joining the European Union and Nato, and leading politicians have been keen to point this out to heads of the Orthodox church who continue to speak out against such "evils". Romania was one of the last countries to legalise homosexuality and to - theoretically - end discrimination against gays and lesbians. In 1994 the country was praised for taking what seemed to be the first step towards establishing a more tolerant attitude towards homosexuality as the constitutional court suspended the communist-era legislation under which homosexual acts were prohibited. It suggested new legislation should be drafted to bring Romania in line with the recommendations of the European Convention on Human Rights. But in 1996, parliament adopted an even more draconian law. Even if practised in private, homosexuality was a crime. Marian Cetiner was the first person to be imprisoned under the new legislation and suffered police brutality and abuse during the two years of a three-year sentence she spent in jail. She was adopted as one of Amnesty International's prisoners of conscience, and protests were triggered around the world. In London protesters stormed the stage of a production of Aida by the Romanian National Opera, a government-sponsored body. In the Netherlands gay rights protesters jeered the Romanian president. Since then, as part of a general overhaul of its crime-fighting legislation, Romania has decriminalised homosexuality, adopting the French legal model. How much the government is just doing this to appease the western clubs it's so desperate to join, and how much the new legislation reflects a new, tolerant society, remains open to examination. Gay rights activists are not optimistic, but at least admit that if the elected representatives of the country have said it's tolerable, slowly the message might filter down. But you do not change a population's entire system of belief over night. That is evident across the region. A Sky television crew in Belgrade this spring to cover events as Slobodan Milosevic was sent to the Hague, happened to find themselves in a city square just as gay rights activists were marching through. As if out of nowhere, a band of thugs descended on the group, knocked them to the ground and started beating up both men and women. The reporter, Tim Marshall, said what appalled him most was not so much the attack as the people sitting in the cafes around the square who laughed and chortled at the spectacle. In Poland things are only mildly better. The rightwing Solidarity bloc government which enjoyed the overwhelming support of the Catholic church, used to openly denounce homosexuality as an "illness" requiring medical treatment - a view that surveys show is supported by one third of Poles. Towards the end of its governing days, playing that card was also seen as an effective way for the conservatives to boost their flagging popularity. As a combined result of decades of communism and the influence of the church, only 27% of Poles express tolerance towards gays, while 88% say they don't know anyone who's gay. In July a survey by the Warsaw-based Lamda lesbian and gay association found that three quarters of Polish homosexuals are unwilling to come out. It also said that gays were not infrequently denied medical attention if they revealed their sexual orientation. It called on the government to introduce legislation to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Whether the two-week-old government, the Alliance of the Democratic Left, will act on this remains to be seen. The message from its central office was simply: "We're looking at some sort of 'don't ask, don't tell policy'." And then the spokesman added quickly: "Of course, we'll quash any legal charges against gays."
Wednesday October 3, 2001
No sooner had he got off the plane at Otopeni airport in Bucharest than the newspapers were trumpeting the news: "American ambassador is homosexual!"
Protection of society, for a starter....
Pols probably won't but seems the people will reject both him and his life style, gonna have to get that democrat congressman from Massachusetts to take junket over there some time soon. mybe he could take his lttle frined 'hot bottoms' with him.
While I support "consenting adult" laws, which protect the sexual privacy of adults behind closed doors, I believe that society needs to be protected from most of the rest of the radical homosexual aganda.
Also Ezekiel 18:23 -- "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die, says the Sovereign LORD, and not that they should turn from their wicked ways, and live?" Obviously, God doesn't hate the wicked AS PEOPLE, otherwise he WOULD take pleasure in their deaths.
The expression "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated" is a Hebrew idiom meaning "Jacob have I favored more, Esau have I favored less."
Nothing more.
Grammy
4 The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD's throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men.
5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.
Proverbs 6
15 Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy.
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren
It has done no such thing. If you are referring to Miller, you are grossly mistaken. If another case, please cite.
The above is a typical Statist misinterpretation of Miller. What SCOTUS said was that there was no evidence presented that showed that the shotgun in the case was a militarily useful to a militia. Miller was not around to present evidence in the case, so the defendant was unable to show that the U.S. Army had used shotguns in the trenches in WWI, the immediately previous big war. I saw some Army relic collector shotguns of this type, with bayonet lugs, at a recent (last month) gun show. It was eminently proveable that Miller's shotgun was militarily useful, he just wasn't around to so prove.
I don't need help, just wish you would elaborate on your "no procreation=recruit" logic. It makes no sense.
By the way, homosexuals CAN reproduce. I have friends with gay parents. And no, their parents didn't procreate so they could have sex with their children. Feel free to disregard the truth if it fits your peculiar worldview and makes you feel better. Cheers.
So you would have me believe that God hates them eternally, and does not desire to save them? Sorry, the entire passage declares this to be speaking of temporal protection -- the "snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest" section is a clear allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah (Don't believe me? Check Clarke's Commentary or even Matthew Henry's Commentary). Sodom and Gomorrah were wicked, so they were destroyed in a PHYSICAL sense. Are they being rained upon with "fire and brimstone" now, in Hell? Probably, but that's outside the scope of this passage. You've proved nothing.
Proverbs 6 15 Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy. 16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
I'm not sure why you include verse 15, considering that it looks out of place -- it belongs with a seperate paragraph, and not the same one as verse 16. Nonetheless, what would you have me believe about this passage? It's clear from the passage you've selected that this list is about actions. "A proud look," etc. -- about half of this list is INDISPUTABLY a list of actions, and I question what you would have me do with the other half. Shall I declare that God hates a man who makes evil plans, and there is no hope of redemption for him?
Or shall I declare the truth of Ezekiel 18:32 -- "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn [yourselves], and live ye" -- and 1 Timothy 2:4, "[God] will have [Gk. thelei, "desires"] all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth," not to mention 1 John 2:2, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world," and 1 Timothy 4:10, "...we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe"?
If so, morality is not a bad word. Societies must have morality, or they will cease to be.
Agreed.
Seems to me that there's a fair amount of confusion about morality and legality. We often hear the aphorism, "you can't legislate morality." But that's false.
In fact, morality is ALL we legislate. Or at least what the legislature understands to be morality. Don't murder, don't steal, etc.
The problem, as I see it, is that the Law of Diminishing Returns kicks in, even with legislation. While morality is all we legislate, we have to accept that we can't legislate ALL morality. If we did, government would grow past the point of being a "necessary evil" into an onerous tyranny.
This is why we don't have laws against simple lying or meanness, etc.
And it's also why I don't think we should have laws against the private sexual practices, even if immoral, of consenting adults. I'm very happy for that to be none of my business.
Unfortunately, that's not what homosexual activists want anymore, They don't want us to be able to ignore what's none of our business. They want to "come out" and be accepted and approved of. They want special legislation that would violate our rights of free association. They wan to "educate" our children aboput their lifestyle. And they want society to redifine morality so that it encompasses their immorality.
No thanks.
Please provide supporting references.
Not only that, they have a queer club inside the State Department. I believe it was in the same article you quoted from.
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.