Snippets of previous posts allude to an agenda by homosexual activists? Some don't think there is any...some do?

Is there a gay agenda?

If so, what are the objectives?

Is there a gay agenda?
No I don't think there is in the sense that it is a conspiracy like ideological plan in effect. I see it as a Rosa Parks like, we are not going to take it any more situation that has gathered momentum and must be addressed. Take me for example, I am a suburban Married Mom of two whom will not reap any benefits of this movement and quite frankly, never really thought much about homosexual rights prior to the State of the Union Address. I probibly would have never even noticed the injustice of the situation. I certainly do not subscribe to an agenda nor do I participate in an organization that does. I am just a concerned citizen.

At this point all gays are asking for is equal rights. I support their agenda 100%. Hopefully they will never cite the need for affirmative action based on 2000 years of discrimination.

Most gay people I know seem primarily focused on family, friends, relationships, having a decent job and a nice home, being able to pay the bills on time, going on a nice trip once or twice a year, etc. So I guess that they do have an agenda, like most people do.

The phrase "the homosexual agenda" seems to be used only by a very specific segment of the population. I suggest that this would be what might be called the Religious Right. Whatever designation you would care to use, this would be the group that believes that homosexuality is inherently immoral. From the point of view of this group, the "agenda" would be acceptance of homosexuality as moral. This, I think, is what is meant when this group states that "the homosexual agenda" is being "forced" on them.

Certainly, there is a movement among many people to end laws preventing same-sex couples from marrying, adopting, and so on. In this sense, I suppose there is an "agenda," just as there is an "agenda" for any political movement. The anti-abortion "agenda," the pro-choice "agenda," and so on. "Agenda" seems to be a word used to suggest something bad about a particular political movement.

With this meaning in mind, I am proudly part of "the homosexual agenda."

Yes there is a gay agenda.


Equal rights.

Well, I've pretty much summed this up.

I agree here. By calling it "an agenda", without defining exactly what the person is referencing, it sounds devious and suspicious. It's the "us vs. them" mentality that appeals to a lot of religious zealots, especially here in the South where one religion can define a whole community and anyone who isn't part of that religion is an "outsider" to not be fully trusted.

Personally, I think it's paranoia and some folks just need to adjust their medication levels.

When I use the term 'agenda', it is because of quotes like these:

Evan Wolfson, a former president of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, leading lobbying and legal action groups for pro-homosexual marriage:

"We can win the freedom to marry...We can seize the terms of the debate, tell our diverse stories, engage the nongay persuadable public, enlist allies, work the courts and the legislatures in several states, and achieve a legal breakthrough within 5 years......This won't just just be a change in the law either; it will be a change in society. For if we do it right, the struggle to win the freedom to marry will bring much more along the way."

- "All Together Now", The Advocate, September 11, 2001

George W. Dent Jr. writing in The Journal of Law and Politics:

"...once same-sex marriage ia affirmed, then other forms of marriage will quickly be affirmed as well, such as polygamy, bestiality, and child marriage."

-"The Defense of Traditional Marriage", Journal of Law and Politics, Vol XV, No. 4, Fall 1999, 628-637.

If you think that is a 'stretch', consider the policy guide for the ACLU which calls for the legalization of polygamy, stating, "The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penallizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, fredom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults."

- ACLU Policy Guide, 1992

But, I digress, back to my defination of 'agenda'.

Homosexual actgivist William Eskridge, says that he hopes gay marriage ..."will dethrone the traditional family based on blood relationships in favor of families we choose."

Another activist, Michelangelo Signorile, stated: "To fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely.....The most subversive actions lesbians and gay men can undertake...;is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely."

- "Bridal Wave", OUT, December-January, 1994

This is an example of why the value of marriage is important to hetero community. Their description of 'marriage' is no better than anonymous sodomy in a bathhouse.

Lesbian activist Barbara Cox (who evidently is cursed with that last name) wrote:
"Yes, we must be aware of the oppresive history that weddings symbolize. We must work to ensure that we do not simply accept whole cloth an institution that symbolizes the loss and harm felt by women.....but I believe they fail to look beyond the symbol and cannot see the radical claim we are making."

-"A Personal Essay on Same-sex Marriage", national Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol 1, Issue 1, 1995.

Let's switch gears and talk about our institutions of learning and see if there is an agenda there. Okay, lets.....

In Silver Lakes, Mass, a freshman health text says: "Testing your ability to function sexually and give pleasure to another person may be less threatening in your early teens with people of your own ses.....(here's the good part) You may come to the conclusion that growing up means rejecting the valujes of your parents."
-"In Loco Parentis Gone Too Far: Usurping Parents Rights", BreakPoint, june 11, 2002

If you don't think that is agenda building, keep in mind that children who received this text were told they could not take it home.

But, I think the foundation and the spirit of the modern day homosexual agenda began with homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen that their two publications: a 1987 article titled: "The Overhauling of Straight America, and a 1989 book titled "After the Ball".
Their six point strategy to radically change America's perception of homosexual behavior goes like this....see if recoginize any of these happening today:

1. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as posible.
2. Portrays gays as victims, not aggressive challengers.
3. Give homosexuals protectors a 'just cause'.
4. Make gays look good.
5. Make the victimizers look bad.
6. Solicit funds: the buck stops here

It's a simple process and one that historically works...time and time again. Almost all behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your aquaintences.

They further lay out plans to attack the institutions that impede their goals: religion.
Ah yes, the stickly little moral plague that is the main cork in the agenda's wine bottle. You'll recognize it in posts, it will often be referred to as 'religious right', 'bigots, 'fanatics', 'stupid', 'mindless'....these are all terms I have read in AD when referring to people with religous morals.

Lets read what Kirk and Madsen have to say about this:

"While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpetations of Biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency."
For those who were unsure of my definitions of Agenda, I hope this clarifies it.

Peace, Love and Light

Wow, you've done your homework. Now, lets take a look at straight-white conservative America. No distinct agenda there... unless you look at the fringe. If I start quoting the Klu Klux Klan and guys like Timothy McVeigh I can certainly provide the impression that there IS a straight-white America.

You've done the exact same thing; and it demonstrates the paucity of your argument. All you've done is taken the FRINGE elements of a social movement, and attempted to reposition them in the center. Can you prove that the "agenda" you describe is the one pursued by the homosexual movement at large. I know all sorts of gay men and women, and I have never heard a single one of them talk about the stuff that has terrified you into obscuring reality.

It's certainly clear that there are agendas, but it is not one massive agenda shared by all gays. G/L/B's are not an insect colony with the common interest of eroding religous and moral values. In fact, there are many, many, many gays and lesbians who are deeply religious (I apologize for not having the actual statistics on me, but here in Los Angeles, we have several all-gay churches).

Your argument and selective quoting reeks of paranoia and a deeply rooted fear in an "enemy" you do not understand. If you really want these rather absurd-seeming quotes to have any meaning towards your argument, your going to need to put them in context.

Who is George W. Dent, and what was the general scope of his article? He doesn't appear to be a member of a gay, lesbian, or bisexual organization. I think it's clear that NO ONE agrees 100% with all of the ACLU's policies, but it's clear what they stand for and why the organization exists. Are you saying you don't support any of the ACLU's actions? What about Religious Liberty?

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/Relig...LibertyMain.cfm

Where do these six points come from? Your clearly not quoting it directly because there are misspellings, and I doubt 'just cause' would be in quotes in the original text.



What movements exactly are you referring to when you say that the above steps have worked over and over again throughout history?

In the end, how does what you are describing as an agenda, differ AT ALL with the "Family Values" movement of the 90's, or the current "Defense of the Family" ideology?

I guess my point, and those who already posted is, by definition any movement HAS to have a serious agenda, if it doesn't there really is no point to it existing. Every progressive and counter-progressive movement I can think of in the last 150 years of America has a clearly defined agenda... Women's Suffrage, Emancipation, Civil Rights, Vietnam War Protests, The Red Ribbon AIDS campaign, the pro-war yellow ribbon campaign of the gulf war, the confederacy, the list goes on and on.

SO YES, there is an agenda, but what's your point?

The nine or so carefully selected snippets that you’ve presented, from varied publications spanning a period of 17 years, fail to convince me that there is any kind of coherent “homosexual agenda.”

As a group, gays are no more unified politically than the population as a whole. Some 30 percent of gays tend to vote for Republican candidates. Many gays are as apolitical as one can get.

Sure, it’s a safe bet that most gay people (or, at least the self-respecting ones) are against the proposed FMA as it stands. Yet, even on this issue, there is divisiveness. Two prominent gay writers, Jonathan Rauch and Andrew Sullivan, have indicated that they might accept the amendment if it was re-worded so that states would not be required to recognize same-sex marriages, but would also not be prohibited from doing so. Other gay people would not accept this compromise.

Some gays think that marriage issues should be left to the states, and others would want the Supreme Court to require all states to recognize same-sex marriage. Others want the government entirely out the business of issuing marriage licenses. Some gay couples, even if given the right to marry, would not to so.

On this important issue, such a lack of unified thinking would make it very hard to come up with an agreed-upon overall agenda.

Fringe elements? Lamdba, the lead legal arm of the homosexuual lobby, and the ACLU....these are fringe elements? Spare me.....

The six points listed, as indicated, come from the publication by Hunter and Madsen. I have given the references where possible. I am not going to put anything in 'context' for you. I quote and opine. Feel free to go to the source. I am not going to do your work for you.

What, for example, context would you put this quote into:
"The fear of the religious right is that the schools of today will be the governments of tomorrow. And you know, they're right. If we do our jobs right, we're going to raise a generation of kids who don't believe the claims of the religious right."
--Speaker at the 1999 GLSEN Conference.

I don't discount that family groups and the religious right have an agenda. I am not even saying that having an 'agenda' is wrong. What I don't understand is that the homosexual movement doesn't even want to acknowledge it.

When that occurs, that is where 'suspicion' develops.

Any agenda in this?:

"An ideal policy would cover a wide range of family types. If possible, an employer should offer benefits to same-and-opposite sex couples, both romantic and nonromantic, as well as the partners' children. Br crafting an inclusive policy such as this, the employer allows the employee to define his or her own family....this policy is more flexible and can adopt to employee family structures as they continue to change."
--Sally Kohn, "The Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual for Employee Benefits," Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, 6.

It can be said that homosexual activists demand total support for their agenda.

A Human Rights Campaign survey found that "72% of gay, lesbian, bisexual and TG consumers said it was important for companies who advertise to the BLBT community to demonstrate effective corporate citizenship by supporting their cause."
--www.hrc.org

I am sure that a number of homosexuals don't care about this stuff and just want to live happily with no fuss, but 72% of them feel strongly enough to insist on total acceptance from compaines that want to do nothing more than to serve that community. No agenda?


The topic of equal rights often surfaces...and this post is not any different. Well, what about religious freedom? Religious liberty and expression? Are homosexual rights and religious expression compatible?

"The Religious Right is not about to admit that they just want to bash gays if they can...You have to remember, Sunday after Sunday, millions of people come to church to hear their diatribes."
--Steven Green, spokesman, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State

How about when the radical homosexual groups ACT-UP chained themselves at NY City's St. Patrick Cathedral and shouted, "..you bigot, O'Connor, you're killing us!", to the late Cardinal O'Conner
--Dec 1989

Another quote:
"Religion is often at the core of why people hate us...People often get their views from their religions, so we don't want the pulpit saying that being gay is wrong."

--Cathy Renna, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation

Some argue that the homosexual agenda and their allies are looking for any opportunity to attack and silence any church that takes a biblical stand with regard to homosexual behavior, regardless of denomination. I know the mod's are keen on avoiding bibical debates, so I wont go there.
But it is apparent that the homosexual agenda is very willing to squash religous expression when it interferes with their cause.

Eugene Lumpkin was a member of the San FRan Human Rights Commission...and was also a pastor at a local Baptist church. In June 23, 1993, he sincerely expressed his personal view about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. He was immediately fired from the commission and branded a homophobe. A local pro-homosexual group proclaimed, "It's about time hate-spewing Christian priests got their bigoted remarks 'corrected'. Let's hope this correction serves as a warning to other homophobic religious bigots that their intolerance just isn't going to be tolerated."
--www.skeptictank.org/firegay.html

Once, as seen on AD, you link religious freedom of expression with 'hate speech', the whole paradign shifts and religion becomes on the defensive. I could type a zillion examples of this, but it seems that the homosexual agenda will not be satisfied until the church either becomes an advocate for their behavior, like the Church of England, or is silenced by intimidation or legal action.

Tolerance and equal rights indeed.

Peace Love and Light.

Very nice job Grig.

Any clear thinking person knows there is so much more behind the current gay marriage debacle than is talked about in the mainstream media. Funny thing is, when some of that agenda is clearly spelled out as requested, it is summarily dismissed as being from the 'fringe'. I guess that would make it the 'fringe' of the 'fringe' of society as a whole?

For those who would like to get another look at both the agenda and the lengths some will go to in an effort to achieve it go to
dearmary.com

Disgraceful exploitation of one of their own...........

I get it, GrigUSA, there IS an agenda: it's to fight against the totalitarian religious right! Way to go for pointing that out!!

Let's help the gay agenda WIN this battle! At least the gays are not trying to make the ego-filled, narcissistic, clearly erroneous claim that "God is on our side".

The bible also says to stone brides to death if their husbands find they arent virgins on their wedding night. For some reason bible believers find it easier to focus on the anti-gay stuff.

Either way, id say the homosexual agenda should be obvious. Its the same as the black civil rights agenda in the 1960s... Treat us like everyone else.

Not the 'religious right', just religion you mean Amf. Anyone whose morals follow a biblical precept, which happens to go against your modified morals.

Totalitarian -- yes, if by that you mean following the Bible. If u mean hating gays, by all means no. Don't you get it...or you Santasdad? Respect and rights are fine right up to the point where you stomp on someone elses.

I could support civil unions for all the benefits and such...even though countless attorneys state that gay couples, as well as older relatives who live together, can get the same benefits with a contract they can draw up. Yes, it is an extgra hassle, but it is available.

It is this innate selfish-ness that "my rights and all else be dammed!" kind of attitude that irks those of faith and families with kids.

I get it.

Thanks for confirming what every rational person knows.

Nope, "totalitarian" as in "we want to control what you are able to do". As in using religious beliefs to decide what I can do that doesn't affect anyone else. Morals have nothing to do with it. You cannot legislate morality, or haven't you heard?

And how does gay marriage stomp on YOUR marriage rights, pray tell? I'm still unclear on that and waiting to hear someone provide a rational argument along those lines.

And, no, gay couples cannot create a contract that will survive their deaths. Probate court judges -- those so-called activist judges -- can override them if they decide they don't like gay couples and don't think kids can be raised by them, even if you clearly stipulate in your will that you want your kids to go to your gay partner. And if you get sick and are in intensive care, your partner can't come visit you without bringing along your contract?? What kind of nonsense is that?

It's the religious zealots who are stomping on gay rights... all in the name of "God". What kind of wonderful god is that??

What, for example, context would you put this quote into:
"The fear of the religious right is that the schools of today will be the governments of tomorrow. And you know, they're right. If we do our jobs right, we're going to raise a generation of kids who don't believe the claims of the religious right."
--Speaker at the 1999 GLSEN Conference.


I would consider this an admirable goal and more importantly, correct! The religious right in America is no different than the religious right in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia- where the dictates of religion over ride civil rights of those who don't believe in those religions.

It is very easy to see the gay rights movement agenda: Equal rights and equal treatment as every other citizen of America. Remember, there was a "black" agenda and they quoted the black panthers and Malcom X etc all the time- and some of those remarks were extreme- but it did not make the movement any less important or ethical or moral.

The immoral agenda - the bad guys if you will- is the American religious movement again- as it almost always is- whether it be prohibition, slavery, civil rights, womens suffrage- it is conservatives and the american religious groups that oppose these very great movements, as it is now.

Please reframe from lumping all "heteros" into your statements. I for one support gay marriage and consider the Religious Right to have the potential of being one of the most dangerous organizations in the country. Thankfully, only a minority of the Republican Party and an even smaller minority of the American public buys into their bigoted, self-important world view.

As for the "Gay Agenda". It seems to me that you are suggesting that their organizations have a behind the scenes motive of making themselves and their lifestyle more acceptable to average Americans. I believe this is true, and I have to ask, so what?

The Religious Right also have a motive to make their beliefs more acceptable to average Americans. If they did not, then why do they not preach the most important message they have (according to thier faith)? That being, If you do not accept Christ as Savior, then you are doomed, can not be saved and will go to hell. They don't preach this to the general public because they know it will alienate a huge segment of the American Population and thus hurt their chances to effect political change.

Of course gay activist groups have an agenda to make their lifestyle more acceptable to the public at large. So does every other group in the country. In the case of homosexuals, they have a few more reasons to do it then the rest. The fact that there are still people out there who actually feel beating someone up for their sexual persuasion is OK is just one of them. Also, lets not forget that they are one of the last groups in America that can be legally discriminated against. Christians, and white males being the others.

Considering the fact that the Religious Right and the Homosexual community both face serious dissemination problems in America you would think they could work together and pool their resorces to fight discrimination on all fronts.

Actually, the "my rights and all else be dammed" attitude seems more prevalent on the religious right.

And, just a side note, "those of faith and families with kids" certainly include gay people.

Whenever the secularists come across an undeniable truth they divert attention to it by naming the 'religious right' as the culprit. They realize that what they're saying is that God is the real 'culprit' here, but they can't quite voice that. Why? Mostly because deep inside they fear that they are headed towards eternal damnation.

The specific 'homosexual agenda' is merely part of a larger 'secular agenda'. History reminds us of what secularist nations become eventually, sometimes not so 'eventually'. Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR come to mind.

Human rights are not granted by man. If you believe they are then you must accept that they can be taken away by man. If they can be taken away by man, they eventually will be. Witness Hitler, Stalin, Hussein.

God made man in his image and likeness. He also created woman to be by his side and made them in such a manner they could procreate. That is and always will be the ultimate truth when it comes to marriage.

The bothersome thing about these discrimination rantings is that the secularists are the real discriminators. They would have a nation founded on God-fearing and God-loving principles cast those beliefs aside to be replaced by their own.

You as a homosexual are free to live your chosen lifestyle. But dont expect that choice to be condoned, promoted or privileged. The ultimate judgement wont be made here nor by us.

You still have time to come to terms with that final arbitrator.

This kind of crap is unproductive. You cannot presume to know the inside of every secularist mind. You can't logically conclude that we (at least us secularists who are atheist) are afraid of something that doesn't even exist to us. An "undeniable truth" is something that can be proven with scientific evidence over and over again. Let's not even get into the unprovable nature of religion.


We are not advocating that your churches be required to pay taxes like the rest of our American institutions. Churches get special priveledges to build elaborate shrines of worship. You get special rights. All homosexuals are asking for are EQUAL rights, they aren't even asked to be treated as grandly as those who believe in supernatural beings (not that the two are disjoint), but for the religious right to claim discrimination when they recieve more priveledges than anyone in this country is an slap in the face, and unbecoming of a christian.

The potential impact of this shift on churches becomes apparent when one realizes that the average local government receives 64 per cent of its general revenue from property taxes and that churches own a vast amount of untaxed property. URL.

Agenda has become such an ugly word, so I decided to start from scratch on this one:



Sounds fairly neutral when we start from there.

Don't we all have an "agenda"? aren't we all looking for acceptance?

I see nothing wrong with an "agenda" to right a wrong.

As a progressive, I have an agenda to do all in my power to create a better world -- to work to create equality and justice for all people.



As a "hetero" I don't agree with your assessment of why heteros value marriage.

Yes, there is a homosexual agenda. Part of it is just, part of it isn't, IMO.

Just Part: Equality, gay people do have every right in the world to be treated with equality, both in terms of the law, and more ideally, in the minds of people...But never will there be a case of complete tolerance toward gay people...Which leads me to my next point...

The unjust part: Thrusting the homosexual lifestyle into the faces of Americans. I think that most people feel that gays should have equal rights, but even thay do not want someone's sexual preference made so public have there right to be left alone. As I've said in another forum, your sexuality is your business, not mine, but with that said, your sexuality is your business, keep it out of my face.

CP

Can we get a clarification here on this statement?

For example, if you walk down the street holding hands with your wife or give her a kiss while you're waiting in line at the supermarket, is that thrusting your lifestyle in the face of Americans? Or do you mean something else?

I'll agree that "gay parades" (coming to a town near you!) are absurd. As for the rest, I live in a town with a large gay population and wouldn't know it if I fell over them. Most are like that.

On the other hand, if you've been hidden in the closet for so long that no one knows what you look like, what can you legitimately do to gain the necessary attention to get the laws changed? What did Blacks have to do in the '50's and '60's? Same difference. Someone has to fight for improvements to be made in society (just like in business, by the way). Sometimes the fight gets messy because not everyone is willing to allow the change to happen. Is this an agenda (to get back to the topic question)? Yep.

No, not at all...I'm refferring to the gay pride parades, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and the like...There aren't any straight pride parades that I am aware of [though Comedy Central is now airing Straight Plan for the Gay Man, seriously]. I just think that flaunting sexuality in general is unnecessary, no matter what preference. My whole problem is that this whole "gay lifestyle" is being put front and center unnecessarily. As I said, sex is private, why make it public?

CP

Passion, you are quickly losing credibility to this secular gal. In the Passion of the Christ thread, who do you blame? SECULARS!!! In this thread about homosexual agendas, again, who's the culprit? SECULARS!!! Honestly.

In case you hadn't noticed, and I tried bringing this to your attention in the Passion thread, but I'll reiterate it once more: secular means without religion. It does not mean someone who doesn't believe in a god.

You obviously have your own prejudices you'd like to keep, because I pointed out to you in another thread that atheists, whom you are intending to blame but instead keep using "secular," do not fear something that doesn't exist. And here you come into this thread and say the same crap. Oooh, eternal damnation. Excuse me while I change my freshly soiled panties.



Yeah, and Iran and Afghanistan are doing peachy. Theocratic countries are no better.

I recall that one fellow debater on this board, Billy Jean, is homosexual, and a Christian. Are you saying that people like her (not her specifically, as I can't speak for her) want equal rights as part of a secular agenda?

Secular means without religion, not someone who doesn't believe in a god. I believe this is the third time I've tried to bring this to your attention. And in case you don't believe me, here's a link.



Actually, Passion, society dictates what rights someone does and doesn't have. And yes, in dictatorships, one person determines your rights. That's just the way it is. Move to Iran, and you won't have the "right" to look at pornography. Here in America, you don't have the "right" to smoke marijuana. If you honestly believe that rights are given to us by your god, then we'd all have the right to stone adulterous women to death, wouldn't we?



Can you submit a single post without preaching? It seriously detracts from whatever credibility you have left. God is not the ultimate truth - it is your ultimate truth. As such, it is all but completely worthless to use in a debate.

Not to mention, what if your god creates women and men who are unable to procreate? Or even better, what's the deal with menopause? Should all married women get divorced after 50 because they can't procreate?

Such is the folly of your "ultimate truth."

Urg, and don't even get me started on the "woman was created to be by man's side"... urg. Just, URG. Sorry, nope, no way, no how. Not in this universe and not in my lifetime.

And then we bring it to a close with a reinforcement about how secularists are the Root of All Evil:



Since you seem to think that "secularist" "atheist" and "homosexual" are interchangeable, there's really no logical way I can respond to that.

Amf -

I wont go way into your question of how 'gay marriage threatens' traditoinal marriage. 1. It's off topic..and 2. See Gay marriage - my post there.

But I forward this thought: You keep bringing up 'equal rights' as if marriage is a right. Perhaps what u mean to say is 'fairness'. But let me address the 'rights' issue breifly:

It is true that eveyone is equal in the eyes of the law. This equality, however, is juridical, not biological. It does not, and indeed cannot, eliminate the anatomical and psychological differences btwn. the sexes.
It is these very differences that create the conditions for marriage and constitute its natural foundation.
Regarding marriage, juridical equality means that all those with the natural capacity to marry have the right to do so. This juridical equality does not create the conditions required by nature for marriage. Now the conjugal act is intrinsically related to marriage, and nature requires two individuals from opposite sexes for its performance.
This natural requirement is totally lacking in two people of the same sex who wish to marry, so the principle of equality under the law does not apply.

That is why govt. does have a voice in who will and who will not marry. Spare me the lectures from the incestual rights, polygamy rights crowd. Egads.

You also seem hell bent on equating your cause to that of racial rights. I don't know why you do that other than try to latch on to a noble effort, but it is ever apparent by any rational person, that this is not analogous to racial rights.

I do support fairness for all persons.

I believe you, or some post, made mention of special tax rights to churchs and that the Gay Agenda (Lavender Mafia...whatever u want to call it) are not objecting to it. Wrong Sir...dead wrong.....and I think you know it.

Churches in Sweden, Canada and Holland fall under legislation that involved hate-speech so they cannot even speak of biblical sin with regards to homosexual behavior. Under the guise of hate-crimes, religous viewpoints are crushed. Not actual crimes mind you...just the thoughts and philosophy under-lying so called hate crimes - it punishes the thought and belief system behind the crime.
Example: Dutch authorities were urged to prosecute Pope John Paul II for his public stance on homosexual behavior whilst visting there on a tour.

Is it a stretch to believe that tax-exempt status for churchs will be revoked if they violate proposed federal, state or municiple hate-crime, or speech limiting laws?

No you say?

In 1998, the San Fran Board of Supervisors denounced an advertising campaign sponsored by a national ministry that said homosexual behavior was sinful and that homosexuals can change. The ad said, in the San Fran Chronicle, that Christians love (and we do) those who are trapped in homosexual behavior but pointed out the destructiveness of homosexual behavior and the need for Jesus Christ to bring healing to the lives of practicing homosexuals.
The Board brought it to court stating that the ads "validates oppression of gays and lesbians" and create the climate the "may encourage violence".
This of course was done, not in supression of religious freedom, no no, but to conquer hate. Ahem.
They lost in court, thank goodness, but that is an example of what is to come...this from the tolerance crowd mind you.

"The first bond of society is marriage" -Cicero

Dialogue with a semi-homophobic Christian Republican

You Decide!



I use the Secular Conservative tag because it keeps the conversant from putting me in one of their little mental pigeonholes. If the conversant is of the Demo/Socialist/Libertine/Left it keeps them from tagging me “Republican” which, as you know, often connotes an adherence to the far right Christian moral certitude which I try to avoid.

The whole gay marriage craze might best be called a cultural revolt with economic benefits for the rebels!

In truth it’s a difficult issue for heterosexual men of my age and I still struggle with it. Homophobia is at the root of the issue. It’s just another form of xenophobia; the fear of anything strange or foreign. Cultural and religious strictures have evolved over millennia in virtually every culture from this fear. It is not unlike the strictures on pork in Judaism and Muslimism that evolved from a fear of illness or death from trichinosis; just less rational. A more apt analogy can be found in another form of xenophobia: Negrophobia. I don’t need to reiterate what that phobia has done to world culture and its laws.

To keep this from being a long dissertation I’ll sum up my moral and philosophical conclusion. Gays should be allowed to “marry”! Anything short of this conclusion is morally repugnant and philosophically unsupportable! But wait a minute ---I didn’t suddenly become a radical gay rights activist any more than I was a radical civil rights activist in ’64.

Conclusions like mine have caused and will continue to foment cultural rebellion if not all out war. There are just too many homophobes including those who hide behind the barricades of religious stricture for society to avoid this conflict. It’s just too bad we’ve arrived at this juncture as the result of rebellion rather than rational public debate. But what’s new!

The Massachusetts Supreme Court made the right decision from a constitutional perspective. It also reached the right moral and philosophical conclusion but, as always, these Leftist Brahmins live in a world of ivory towers and benches. The problem is the decision makes no friggin’ practical or political sense and, in fact, causes economic discrimination against those of us who are single or in traditional marriages! How?

Rightly of wrongly, our governments; federal, state, regional, and local have enacted an estimated 1000 laws or regulations which provide entitlements to “married” people. This constitutes social engineering that to my libertarian soul is not the realm of government. I would argue that the majority of these entitlements were intended to provide financial support to couples who are raising children and, historically, to provide survivor benefits to the traditional “homemaker” spouse who has limited employment opportunities. Any time units of government pass entitlement laws assumptions are made. The assumption that “married” people have children changes radically when we allow gays to “marry”. We must change these entitlement programs to insure true equality. A book could be written enumerating and commenting on the changes that would be required to existing law to insure “total legal equality” for married gays. Let it suffice to say:

Equal Rights! Equal Entitlements! Equal Obligations! Equal Responsibilities!
And Keep Your Sexuality in Your Bedroom—Not my Family Room!

As I’ve said to gay acquaintances, we can legislate or adjudicate these equalities over a reasonable period of time. We cannot legislate or adjudicate social and cultural equality for gays any more than we’ve been able to for African-Americans. All we can do is educate and hope (and/or pray for those so disposed). The responsibility for such education is in the hands of (hopefully) rational and sensitive gays, not the radicals.

Radical activism and anarchy is damaging, not helping the cause of gay equality. Allowing a pandering politician like Mayor Newsom to highjack their cause for political gain is saddening. Gays are not alone however; the working class in America is applauding John Kerry for doing exactly the same thing to them!

Regards,

Ha, that's exactly how I feel about religion. Your religion is your business, keep it out of my face (and out of our country's constitution).



Does this actually make sense to you? When you are trying to define a word, you can't use that same word in the definition. That defeats the point you are trying to get across. For you to define "juridical equality of marriage" as "those with the natural capacity to marry..." that just killed your whole paragraph. There are no conditions required by nature to marry. Cave men and women didn't marry, and guess what - the species made it this far. There is no natural requirement for marriage - your argument is based on some strange notion of "natural requirement". It doesn't exist - your argument not only failed miserably, but my head hurts from trying to make sense of this completely inadequate argument. I was going to just leave it alone, I probably should have. You obviously didn't put much research into it, who knows why I even bothered to point out your logical flaws....

[quote=perspective,Mar 1 2004, 07:37 PM]

[/QUOTE]

Ha, that's exactly how I feel about religion. Your religion is your business, keep it out of my face (and out of our country's constitution).

[/quote]
No specific religion is part of the constitution but God surely is. Our country was founded on religious principles, Judeo-Christian to be precise. Those who dont wish to live their lives in such a society are free to leave. The world is a big place, I'm sure they can find a comfortable place elsewhere.

Ohhh, I see. America is only supposed to be comfortable for Jews and Christians to live in. People of any other religion, or no religion of all, were never intended to be allowed to live here to worship freely as they pleased. Gotcha

Passion, so what if America was founded IN PART on Judeo-Christian values, like slavery and genocide? So. What? This is a democracy, not a theocracy. As such, Judaism and Christianity do not dictate the guidelines for law. This is the year 2004. This country has been established for almost three centuries. Believe it or not, in those centuries, things have changed. It is unreasonable for you to want to turn back the clock and go back in time to the way America used to be during the early stages of it's life, when Biblical tests for political office were relatively commonplace and dissent was extraordinary due to the heavy Puritan threatening of hell, and when human beings of certain races were considered property? Passion, things change. Our country is no longer like that, and you need to accept that. America started out a relatively indiverse country, and over the past two hundred odd years, it has changed. People of different backgrounds, religions, and sexual orientations have build America to what it is today, and there is no reason that these people don't deserve the same rights (or "priveleges," if that's what you think equality is) as the WASPs who dominated hundreds of years ago.

I can't stress this enough to you: America is not a theocracy. Your religious values have no place in law, as that violates the first ammendment. What dogma was used in part for the basis of America's Constitution, or what-have-you is completely irrelevant to today. If laws were to be made for religious reasons, that would be a prime example of a law "respecting the establishment of religion." That would be government-sanctioned religion. The elastic clause was specifically created becaue the founding fathers had the foresight to recognize that, over time, this country would change, and laws would probably need to be made to be in accordance with the times. The Constitution is considered a living document, Passion, so contrary to your belief, we are not in 1787.

So what if you feel threatened by equal rights for homosexuals? The world is a big place, I'm sure you can find a comfortable place elsewhere. It's very simple: homosexuals want the same rights and priveleges that you enjoy automatically as a heterosexual male - their "agenda" - and you want to deny them those priveleges and rights based on your religion. And... because that's how the founding fathers would want it to be. With justice and liberty for all heterosexual Christians.

Wow, that's about the most un-American thing I've ever heard anyone say on this board. No, really, it truly is.

Exactly why would a bunch of pilgrims leave a country where a Judeo-Christian sect (the Church of England) was held as the predominant and reigning religion? Why would they want to travel thousands of miles across the Atlantic Ocean to set up another country to be ruled by a particular Judeo-Christian dogma? As far as I'm aware, the pilgrims felt repressed by the Church of England, and wanted religion out of government. Now, we all suddenly want religion back in our government? Did we learn nothing from our founding fathers?

Yes, they were God-fearing individuals. They also understood (and were rather outspoken) that religion is a personal, private affair that should be between the individual and God. It belonged no where in our government, which is why God is not mentioned in our Constitution. This is also why the First Amendment was established--and also why it was the first amendment. To ensure religious freedom for all citizens. Now to proclaim that the Judeo-Christian values should dictate how everyone lives is an affront to what this country was created for. I'm truly dismayed, and yet this type of thinking is very commonplace nowadays.

Of course homosexuals have an agenda--they want to get married. We all have agendas. Just as gay couples want to marry, the religious conservatives want gay couples to stay hidden away in their closets. Just in this debate, I've read that gays shouldn't flaunt their sexuality in our faces (I guess it was flaunting of those darn blacks to parade down the street asking for equal rights), that "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is somehow forcing sexuality down our throats (even though the sexuality of the show is less than "Will & Grace"), and that gay marriage is a selfish desire of sub-standard citizens.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about who is gay and who is straight (well, except for Colin Farrell, but that's just my fantasy), it is high time gay couples be allowed to legalize their relationships. When shows like "Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire?" air on our national TV broadcasts, our gay couples shouldn't flaunt their sexuality? Pardon me, but most sexuality on TV is straight. I don't know what you are talking about. And how are we to accept your proposed "sanctity of marriage" argument when you have never held it as anything sacred until now? With divorce rates, trivialized marriage on TV shows where its about money and not love, Las Vegas weddings which end overnight, how are gay couples supposed to not feel insulted? And these aren't just "pointless" arguments--they are real, they are valid, and they show that straight couples only care about the "sanctity of marriage" when someone else wants it too. Pardon me, but that is pure and utter nonsense.

Wow I have to respond to this. Please Passion read the whole post and address it. I have no intention of leaving my country nor do I wish you or anyone's else to.

The only arguments I have heard to ban Gay marriage are based on morals and religion. I firmly believe that such arguments have no place in a free society as all people do not share the same religion and therefore do not share the same morals. I believe our laws must remain unbiased for our society to remain free. The slippery slope works both ways in this argument, if we codify rights (laws) in relation to one belief structure will we not in essence devalue other belief structures and ultimately establish a state sponsored religion. Wasn't our country founded on the premise of freedom of religion? I know in my personal family history my ancestors were French Huguenots (Protestants). The Huguenots were beheaded and all worldly possessions confiscated. Protestants were no longer welcome in France as the majority had converted to Catholicism. We must tread the waters of individual rights carefully as they may lead to unexpected outcomes, we may become what we feared most.






I think George Jr. needs to read up on his family history a bit......

Passion if you question the validity of these statements please search the history of the Huguenots. They were people of faith whom lost all that they owned including their lives due to religious intolerance. It was their very belief in liberty and freedom for all that you reference not religious intolerance.

Judeo-Christian foundations may be too narrow for some to accept. The broadest and most distinguishing description of the pillar our country is built on would be something more akin to a nation that believes in the existence of a higher authority and will strive to guide itself accordingly.

Human rights are granted by a supreme being, not by man or his government. Consequently those rights cannot be taken away by mere men. Our founders understood this and fashioned a govt around that belief.

The weakest argument some are putting forth is that 'times have changed'. Yes they have, but there has been no change in what constitutes morality. Nor could there be. Man cannot change that.

When I suggest you can move elsewhere, I only want to accommodate you and allow you to find comfort. It's obvious you're not comfortable here. I'd prefer you'd stay and hopefully someday see the light. But that choice is yours.

However, your choices do not include attempts to undermine the very foundations of our society. Any such efforts will not go unchallenged and will eventually be defeated.

The 'gay movement' is one such effort. The 'agenda' is subversive. Many homosexuals are unwitting pawns in the effort and I feel sorry for them. The majority of Americans dont hate gays, nor do I. The majority of Americans are not homophobic, nor am I. However, the majority of Americans recognize attempts to destroy the fabric of American society, as do I. And that majority will continue to defeat those attempts, from without and just as importantly, from within.

Religion is a facet of our American life and our Constitution. I am sorry if your hatred for our country blinds you to that fact. I would refer you to Federalist Papers for a plethora of references to religion, morality and God whilst developing this country.

As far as you not understanding something plainly written as well as concepts like natural law, well, I can't help that either. If you PM me, I guess I can explain it further for you. Other than that, again, I am sorry, but I put my crayolas away for the day so I can't draw it our for you.

Your argument is analogous to an debate (on the radio) I had with a homosexual activist who was actually denying that it is 'natural' that a man and a woman are anatomically complimentary by nature. Unlike you though, I didn't insult him though or dismiss his argument. He was pushing an agenda, or in this case, defending one, and the listensers were smart enough to figure that out.


But please, continue to hang your hat on the 'caveman theory'. Perfect.

Yeah, I obviously have a hatred for our country You offer about as much support for that statement as you do for your "natural requirement" theory.



If you would care to supplement your "comlimentary by nature" argument with some of these plainly written facts I'd be glad to read them. And if you could come round circle and tie that into how it relates to the debate of allowing homosexuals to have equal rights, I'd be appreciative also. Because as of right now, it seems like you're beating the horse to death by the same relentless argument about "since they can't have children, they shouldn't have rights."


I could have my homosexual brother's adopted kid get out his crayolas and show you a picture of our beautiful family, but I wouldn't want him to get insulted by a homophobe who tells him that his family is less than "normal". See, because your argument that homosexuals aren't families HARMS people, where my argument that they are families doesn't harm anyone.

That's the difference.

If you can prove that wrong - I'd be glad to hear it.

Let's see you argue this maturely - if you don't mind.