Court victories for "gay rights" are often a defeat for other rights, most notable the freedom to associate or not associate – but largely for people who with traditional religious convictions, hardly a group that includes the national media. The Washington Post’s Jacqueline Salmon reported on Friday that religious people are increasingly losing in court. Left unaddressed: will America head in the same direction as Canada or Sweden, where religious charities or even sermons inside churches become grist for inspection by "human rights commissions" objecting to a "bigoted" religious orthodoxy?
Salmon’s story balanced out liberal and conservative advocates, but its list of court defeats might raise in conservative minds that old liberal concern about a "chilling effect" on freedom. Salmon began:
Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.
The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:
-- A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.
-- A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
-- Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
-- A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.
"It really is all about religious liberty for us," said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony. "The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles."
Later, Salmon added a little more detail to the fertility doctor case in California:
Battles are increasingly including private businesses. Last August, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Guadalupe Benitez, who is a lesbian, when she sued the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group after doctors said their religious beliefs prevented them from artificially inseminating her.
We were devastated," said Benitez, 37, who has been with partner Joanne Clark for almost two decades. Sexual orientation "should never have been an issue," she said. "The issue was that I had a medical condition."
The court ruled that North Coast Women's Care did not have a free-speech right or a religious exemption from the state antidiscrimination law.
"Gay rights groups" are quite determined to make religious objections to homosexuality illegal: "In their role as a participant in the marketplace, they are being required to do that in a non-discriminatory way," Brian Moulton of the Human Rights Campaign told the Post.
Conservative advocates counter-argued:
"People seem to say that if you enter the world of commerce, you lose all your First Amendment rights" to free exercise of religion, said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization that has represented several businesses. "They . . . have become nothing more than vending machines, and the government can dictate the conditions under which they dispense their goods and services."
Salmon pointed out that even when traditionalist groups win, they can lose in the public-relations arena. Being ostracized by the "human rights" campaigners can cost public support and donations:
Even when groups opposing homosexuality have prevailed in court, they have gone on to face other setbacks. The Boy Scouts of America won a lawsuit in 2000 because it did not allow openly gay Scouts or Scout leaders. Since then, some private charities have refused to support the Scouts, and some local governments have yanked free use of facilities and other benefits. In Philadelphia, the city is demanding that the Scouts pay $200,000 in annual rent for a building that they had been using rent-free. The dispute is in court.
Some scholars also point to Bob Jones University, which lost its tax exemption over a ban on interracial dating and marriage among students, even though it claimed that those beliefs were religiously grounded. Some legal analysts suggest that religious groups that do not support gay rights might lose their tax exemptions because of their politically unpopular views.
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who supports same-sex marriage, said the Bob Jones ruling "puts us on a slippery slope that inevitably takes us to the point where we punish religious groups because of their religious views."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
would there be as
April 12, 2009 - 09:14 ET by red_dragon311would there be as much outrage if a muslim doctor refused to treat a jew? Or if a female doctor refused to see a male or would the jew or male be insensitive for even going to a muslim or women doctor i the first place
see thats what makes the United States a great place....you arne't forced to go to "THE" doctor you can go to "A" doctor.
but when universal healthcare comes then we won't have to worry about that because then only the super rich will be able to aford good health care
FINALY A REAL CANDIATE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!
http://zod2008.com/index.htm
The cultural termites
April 12, 2009 - 22:33 ET by reelman46Modern secular socialism first takes shame and respect from a culture...that greases the abnormal to normal transition and the noose slowly closes around those wishing to oppose (or even debate ) their actions...hence the smears and intimidations.
So here we are. The cutural nazis at work claiming the rest of us are just that...
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
The Homosexual community KNOWS
April 12, 2009 - 09:30 ET by Massage_Master07that the majority of people in this country, particularly religious people and groups, do NOT want "gay is great" shoved in their faces 24/7. I KNOW that I don't. But isn't it amazing that if the shoe were on the other foot, you know, 24/7 coverage AGAINST homosexual behavior, they would be the FIRST up in arms about the way they were or are treated, even though NATURE itself is against homosexual behavior. But the queers NEVER seem to understand or state THAT little bit of information.
I've never seen a fag refused an interview or a job anywhere, except MAYBE by the above religious people or churches. But none are rejected as CPAs, lawyers, CONGRESSMEN, etc...
Of course, I'm sure that it's ok for THEM to refuse service to someone that comes into THEIR place of business and says that they do NOT condone homosexual behavior and the problems that it brings with it.
Evolving or devolving; that is the question!
April 12, 2009 - 10:17 ET by Billybob RedneckThis is another disturbing and highly agitating, soon to be to common place occurrence. It's past time to wake up and take a stance for decency. Whether you believe in the Judeo-Christian faith or not, we should be able to agree, that the moray's set forth are a good foundation for a civil society. Even our founding fathers came to this conclusion.
What's interesting to note, is for those proponents of evolution, this is a prime example of man when left to himself, does not evolve into a higher plane of existence. On the contrary, he will always, devolve.
We as responsible people need to pay very close attention to those we elect. This starts on the local level. Their character, their beliefs, their associations, must be carefully scrutinized. What they say, must be what they do! Electing officials with high moral values will help to slow (hopefully curtail) the onslaught of these deviant, dust eating, devourers of common good.
If we don't take a stance, then we only have ourselves to blame. Get out and become active in your community. If you don't have the time, the very least you can do is fund those organizations that take the appropriate stand.
As Neo reaches for the red pill Morpheus warns Neo
"Remember, all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more."
this is exactly correct -
April 12, 2009 - 12:36 ET by TruthMongerthis is exactly correct - well said
"Religion -- it's hard to kill" sums up the feeling of many futurists (What Futurists Believe, Coates and Jarratt, 1989). In this book, the two authors demonstrate that most futurists do not take religion seriously or are interested in only its aberrations or extremes (e.g., fanaticism, fundamentalism). Stark and Bainbridge begin their book The Future of Religion with the following observation: "The most illustrious figures in sociology, anthropology, and psychology have unanimously expressed confidence that their children, or surely their grandchildren, would live to see the dawn of a new era in which, to paraphrase Freud, the infantile illusions of religion would be outgrown" (Stark and Bainbridge, 1985, p. 1)
Attention Christians...God Will Force Us to Take A Stand
April 12, 2009 - 10:37 ET by phshaw01We are truly seeing at a breakneck pace now the coming reality that Christian principles (i.e. that homosexuality is sinful etc.) will be the subject of social censorship sanctioned by the US government. As a Christian, I say so be it. God says we are aliens in this godless world anyway. If you are truly Christian, you will be willing to stand on the Word of God NO MATTER WHAT. No it does not conform to the comfortable Christianity of modern day US vintage, but welcome to the world of true Christian persecution being experienced by our brothers and sisters in many other regions of the world. How far are you prepared to stand? Look at what Christ did for us? What are we willing to do for Him?
Sorry, it's not "God will force. . .."
April 12, 2009 - 12:06 ET by CKA in Red State USAThe God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (including Jesus -- the Son of God, the Son of David, the Son of Man) and I do not mean Allah -- has been forcing and is currently forcing anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian to stand for Him, the Lord Jehovah, and be proud of and evangelize the Gospel, not surrender.
Indeed, that means taking a stand, no matter what.
What passes for Christianity, in churches and denominations, and among individuals, is now being defined by people's love and knowledge of God, or hatred and/or ignorance of God. Or their desire to write their own gospels and pursue apostasy.
Of course, now with pretend-Christian Barack Obama, the abortionist-in-chief, among other things, who got elected by 55 percent of so-called Catholic Christians voting for him and who knows how many Protestants, including evangelicals, voting for him--the secular world and those apostate or decevied Christians are emboldened to squeeze those who will not bend.
Plus, we have Rick Warren, who openly lied on the Larry King show about his, Warren's, stance on California's Proposition 8.
Warren, pastor of the mega-church Saddleback church and purportedly the highest-selling Christian author, also groveled nationally on King's show, saying he'd apologized to his "gay" friends for having every spoken out against homosexual marriages.
With a deceived Christian leader of such prominence, with a fake Christian as president, with a liberal/leftist judiciary, with an advocacy/adversary media who is not just ignorant of Christianity but hostile to it, with the spiritual and intellecutal disease called political correctness, with an anti-Constitution political party in power--these all add up to an anti-Christian era in contemporary America.
Should some of us live long enough, and Christ chooses not to return in our lifetimes, we may see Christianity outlawed. Certainly, we will continue to see the expansion of First Amendment prejudice against Christians.
So, we who call ourselves Christian now increasingly find that we must chose between Caesar and Christ.
So welcome to real Christianity, American Christians: Your life of living in the comfort zone ended a while ago and things ain't ever going to be what they once were in America.
Some of us may be imprisoned, fired from jobs, ostracized, whatever.
Some of us may even die.
But so what?
The princes of this world have always tried to kill Christ and Christianity.
They failed at Golgotha, where the Christ was crucified.
They've failed since, no matter what they've done or when they've done it, historically or now.
They do not understand, as homosexuals and their supporters do not understand, that their persecution only serves to strenghten God's true church on this planet.
While its being sifted more now, so what? The tares need to be separated from the wheat.
This isn't the half of it
April 12, 2009 - 10:42 ET by BlondeThe Obama administration is more than likely going to reverse the "Concscience Clause" this month.
That video was aired three days ago on Fox.
Note the liberal "framing" of the argument....a woman's "right" to health care (i.e. abortion, contraception, in-vitro, etc.) overrides a health care provider's right to object on a moral basis.
The piece notes an interesting statistic, as well...amongst pro-choice health care practitioners, 60% support the continuance of the the Conscience Clause.
But it appears that Obama and the leftists are intent upon forcing providers to perform procedures that are morally repugnant to them.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
I hope he fails, too.
I've said for a long time
April 12, 2009 - 10:48 ET by motherbeltI've said for a long time that this is the problem with a strictly
secular society. When there is no underlying system of morality with a
sense of right and wrong, i.e. no God and no religious foundation,
everything comes down to what is legal or illegal.
And once something is decreed "legal" opposing it or not tolerating it is not allowed.
You have given one great example of it, Blonde. When it is a law, with no basis of right and wrong, it simply becomes illegal (a crime) for a doctor to refuse to perform abortions.
And many more consequences to follow....
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Don't forget "hate crimes"
April 12, 2009 - 11:11 ET by BlondeHow is the murder of a gay person by a straight person any more awful/tragic/immoral than the murder of a straight person by another straight person?
Yet we have "hate crime" laws on the books. Soon, we will see other "crimes"....such as the example cited above, the refusal of a physician to implant an embryo in a lesbian, termed "hate crime".
Mark Steyn was prosecuted in Canada for "hate speech"....I believe Bridget Bardot was also prosecuted in France for same. If you don't think we're up next on the agenda for the legal codification and expansion of so-called hate crimes, think again.
These leftists never stop.
I hope he fails, too.
Let's be more specific: It's Obama who wants to reverse...
April 12, 2009 - 12:10 ET by CKA in Red State USA. . .the conscience clause.
Makes perfect sence, given that pretend-Christian Obama, who appears to loathe life when it's inside a mother's womb or when it's just born, seems to lack morality, thus conscience.
His day and those who support that ghoulishness, as well as the Marxist thuggery they're suggesting, will get their comeuppance someday, if they do not change their ways.
And I'm not suggesting that comeuppance will come from anyone on this planet.
It'll be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is just and who will judge their conduct.
They play with a spiritual fire so hot, so eternally soul-damning, that they cannot possibly comprehend its extent.
delete
April 12, 2009 - 10:44 ET by motherbeltThey might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!"
-Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
SCREW THESE SOB"S
April 12, 2009 - 10:48 ET by DelsaI am so tired of the politically correct crap.
I am finished just listening or noding my head when people talk about gays, global warming, green this and that, or any other left wing nut thinking.
People will know my views. And if they don't like them well they can BUG OFF!
Naturally, I'll use my superior intellect to finesse my views and the A**H**** will never know what hit them!
What if your child is born gay? Then what?
April 12, 2009 - 12:33 ET by Flying_DutchmanHopefully at some point in time religious groups and their parishioners will realize that it is not okay to discriminate against someone who is gay, just as it is not okay to discriminate against people for the color of their skin. If you choose, think about it as, “We are all God’s creatures made in his image” and I think you will have taken a mighty step in understanding the natural and not so threatening world around you.
What happened to puberty?
April 12, 2009 - 12:42 ET by CobraManNo one is born "gay," just as no one is born "straight.' Ever hear of puberty?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Ever hear of genetics?
April 12, 2009 - 12:47 ET by Flying_DutchmanI meant genetically, of course.
well dutch
April 12, 2009 - 12:53 ET by botgyours may be the one most idiotic statement of the month!!
Genetics!!! so you claim that gays get their gayness from their gay parents... think about it
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Genetics as an excuse
April 12, 2009 - 13:04 ET by CobraManThe "gay gene" argument is just an attempt to use genetics as an excuse to justify personal behavior without personal responsibility. How can someone be responsible for their personal behavior if that "behavior" (especially sexual behavior) is attributed to genetics? It's just a way for people to deny their own responsibility for their own personal behavior. Of course, that argument totally dismisses our ability to control our own behavior.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Cobra it doesn't answer
April 12, 2009 - 13:09 ET by botgthe whole issue anyway,
if it were an inherieted gene it would have self-eliminated from the gene pool centuries ago, genetics?? now that is funny!!
also, behavior is not okay just because it is natural
I believe myself to be typical of the majority of men. Now i can walk through the mall and be tempted to 'jump' many many women, it's natural but should it be legal for me to act on my natural tendancies? Of course not.
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Malformed genes
April 12, 2009 - 13:26 ET by CobraManHere's what the Gay Gene supporters tend to forget:
If gayness IS due to genetics, as so many people claim, then it must be due to a malformed gene, or genes, and is, therefor, TREATABLE!
If, for example, gayness is due to certain hormone imbalances, due to abnormal production of the hormones responsible for sexuality, then hormone therapy can be used to cure the abnormality. But this is't what the supporters claim. They clam that, since is is a genetic phenomena, gayness is natural, even though natural selection would ensure that this "gay" gene would not be passed along to their progeny and would, therefor, be eliminated from the gene pool, just as you postulate.
So, the "gay gene" supporters tell us that gayness is inherited AND is not something that is susceptible to natural selection, which is a contradiction.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
A cure for conservatism has been found. Line up for your shots!
April 12, 2009 - 13:37 ET by Flying_DutchmanNatural selection does not insure that certain genes don’t get passed along. If that were true in any way, all people and animals would all look the same and genetically be the same. Sorry friend, it just doesn’t work that way. And saying that homosexuality should be treated is like me wishing for a cure to conservatism.
except
April 12, 2009 - 13:42 ET by botgconservatives have offspring ----- gays do not, that would make it self-eradicating.
based on your posts density is also an viable gene
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
conservatives have
April 12, 2009 - 16:01 ET by motherbeltconservatives have offspring ----- gays do not, that would make it self-eradicating.
Gays do have offspring, and they could posit that theory that it is a recessive gene,
And there will always be women who will gestate a baby for a gay male couple, using the sperm of one of them....or a guy to supply the sperm for a female gay couple to have a baby using one of their eggs...
If indeed there is a "gay gene" (which I don't believe there is) that gene could get passed down, and if the other donor also had a recessive "gay gene" the result could be a gay child.
That's IF it's genetic, of course.
My head hurts.
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
right motherbelt
April 12, 2009 - 16:05 ET by botgthe general outcome can be overcome, but in the long run it would self-eradicate, since your examples are the exceptions, the recessive gene would receed
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
duchess mb, tell ya what, That post needs to be bookmarked...
April 12, 2009 - 22:36 ET by upcountrywaterTotally baby gay code...
Thanks good one .... here,s a head massage.
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
ucw... LMAO! Where, why
April 12, 2009 - 22:45 ET by bigtimerucw...
LMAO!
Where, why and how do you find these videos...that was mind-bending good...I'm still laughing.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Thanks bt, I have boycotted TV for years so i channel surf YT.
April 12, 2009 - 23:38 ET by upcountrywaterMost everything is on it, hay google owns them now... all knowing beast... *gulp*
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
Sex genes
April 12, 2009 - 13:43 ET by CobraManNatural selection WOULD insure that "gay" genes wouldn't bepassed along. Gay men wouldn't breed, correct? How can you pass along a gene when you don't breed?
Even bisexuality, due to the tendency of bisexuals to have sex with members of the same sex, would lead to a reduction of the possibilities of "passing along" the bisexual gene and, after a few generations, would lead to the EXTINCTION of that bisexual gene, due to natural selection favoring the "straight" breeding patterns over the "bisexual" breeding patterns. That bisexual gene would breed itself right out of existence.
It's all a numbers game when dealing with natural selection (genetics), and the 'gay' gene just doesn't add up.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
How can you pass along a
April 12, 2009 - 16:02 ET by motherbeltHow can you pass along a gene when you don't breed?
See my reply to botg above. These days it's not impossible.
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Genetics
April 12, 2009 - 13:05 ET by CobraManYes, I've heard of genetics, and genetics says that sexuality isn't expressed, doesn't develop, until puberty. So, once again, no one is born gay.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Born gay
April 12, 2009 - 13:30 ET by Flying_DutchmanThere was an interesting study done where it was shown in families where all the siblings are males, there is an increasing probability that the later siblings from boy #3 on have an increased chance of becoming homosexual. The theory runs that mothers over time develop hormonal reactions to the males in their womb, essentially hormonally trying to convert the male to female. Obviously there are many contributing factors to homosexuality, be it genetics, hormones, environmental pressures, etc. The notion that homosexuals “choose” this lifestyle however is ludicrous. In assuring me he was “born gay,” a friend of mine said he knew it from very early on; long before puberty that he was “different.” He also asked, “Why would I ‘choose’ to be different from all my friends and choose a life where I am certain to be discriminated against?”
The homosexuals I feel saddest for are those who were raised and continue to stay in an anti-homosexual church. I know a few and they are among the most conflicted people in the world and it only gets worse with age. I would say that a practicing Catholic who is also a homosexual is ten times worse off emotionally than being a Log Cabin Republican.
~Link please
April 12, 2009 - 13:36 ET by choselife3xThat high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Born gay
April 12, 2009 - 13:49 ET by Flying_DutchmanEnjoy! Here's a good link. I learned about this when my third son came out (in terms of his sexuality). Rather than ignore his homosexuality, I did my darndest to help him. I want him to grow up feeling good about himself. After all, he didn't choose to be homosexual, her was born that way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_bfVvo3dd8
A youtube link?
April 12, 2009 - 14:15 ET by CobraManWher's the link to the actual study?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Cobra
April 12, 2009 - 14:20 ET by botgthe link is to Leslie Stall that great arbitor of truth!!
but the assertion is that its not genetic but environmental so gay can be cured
btw--it's not my link i'm just calling it as i see it
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Use the Google, if you dare
April 12, 2009 - 14:47 ET by Flying_DutchmanI supplied a link to a general overview because I thought it would be more accessible and informative to most posters. Interested folks can of course dig further on their own, if they choose. I think the overview cited “numerous studies” and showed an image of at least 5. For myself, I have looked into this subject in some detail as homosexuality is part of my family. Genetics is also apparently a component, yet downplayed in this overview.
May I suggest you try a Google search if you require further validation or more in-depth knowledge? If I did all the research work and presented it to you, would you actually read it? You do know how to Google, don’t you? Even former President Bush “uses the Google,” as he is wont to say.
another failed parent:( - woe to you my son
April 12, 2009 - 14:20 ET by TruthMongerChildren are a gift from God to parents. There are both privileges and responsibilities resulting from this gift. Gen. 48:9; Psa. 127:3; Isa. 8:18
The chief responsibility of parents is the teaching and training of their children. Deut. 6:6,7; Prov. 22:6; 2 Cor. 12:14; Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; 1 Tim. 3:4,12; Tit. 2:4; Deut. 4:9; 31:13
Parents' duties include providing for children's physical needs. 2 Cor. 12:14
Parents are expected to administer correction involving discipline. Eph. 6:4; 1 Tim. 3:4; Deut. 4:9; Prov. 19:18; 22:15; 23:13
Here's what's ludicrous...
April 12, 2009 - 13:38 ET by CobraManHere's what's ludicrous: The idea that we can't control our own lifestyle, that we can't control our own behavior. Do you REALLY believe that humans have no control over their own behavior? If this is true, then why don't I have sex with every woman I find attractive? Here's why: I have control over my sexual impulses, just like I have control over every other behavior impulse.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Ah but you can't help who
April 12, 2009 - 13:54 ET by balboaAh but you can't help who you're attracted to, can you? You're attracted to women. You can't suddenly decide that you're going to be attracted to men.
It's too nice a day for this, anyway ... catch ya later!
April 12, 2009 - 13:56 ET by Flying_DutchmanThe fact that you conflate raping women with homosexuality shows that you have very little understanding about the issues involved. This is not an intelligent or worthy analogy. Sorry, but I won’t debate your point because it is in fact pointless.
False assertion
April 12, 2009 - 14:02 ET by CobraManWho said anything about rape? That's a false assertion on your part. It's rather ironic that you claim I don't use intelligence when, in fact, you INVENTED the rape claim.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Natural tendencies, or sexual affliction? You decide ...
April 12, 2009 - 14:20 ET by Flying_DutchmanCobra,
Sorry, I got you confused with botg. You only have an impulse to have sex with every woman you find attractive. It was botg who conflated homosexuality with rape when he wrote, “Now i can walk through the mall and be tempted to 'jump' many many women, it's natural but should it be legal for me to act on my natural tendancies?”
For myself, I am heterosexual, but I don’t want to have sex with every woman I find attractive, nor follow my “natural tendencies” and jump women in malls. Perhaps you two should go see a doctor. There may be a cure for your sexual afflictions.
well dutch
April 12, 2009 - 14:26 ET by botgyou make my point, thanks
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
You just proved my point.
April 12, 2009 - 14:29 ET by CobraManYou just proved my point. You said your have sexual attractions towards women, yet you control your sexual attractions, correct? Why can't "gay"men do the same as you?
By the way, You're being a hypocrite. I don't act on most of my impulses, even my sexual impulses (and that's what "attraction" is, by the way, an impulse), your claim to the opposite notwithstanding. You said yourself that you're attracted to women and, I guess, you feel this is normal, but when I say the same thing you tell me to see a doctor. Well, hypocrite, practice what you preach and see a doctor yourself. You have sexual impulses (attractions) towards woman! You're SICK, just like me. Or is it only those who disagree with you who need the services of a doctor?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Cobra on the prowl
April 12, 2009 - 15:34 ET by Flying_DutchmanCobra,
Just two small rebuttals, and then I really gotta’ go. Just because I find a woman attractive doesn’t mean I want to have sex with her and that I need to control my impulses. That is your assertion about your understanding of yourself (and why you should really see a doctor). You may need a self-choke collar, but I do not. By homosexuals controlling their impulses, I assume you mean they should have no sex at all, and this is where your 'logic' becomes a poor excuse for gay bashing.
Many of the homosexuals I know are monogamous. Many have been living together for many years, are married, or are trying to get married. This is because they love each other and want to grow old together and take care of each other. Basic human instincts, if you ask me. They, like me, aren’t innately seeking to have sex with anything that moves. Unlike some randy animals around here.
F-D, it's cool to be gay now, not so cool in the 50's
April 12, 2009 - 13:52 ET by upcountrywaterSure as the younger and younger folk, wonder into crumbling public schools , they come away in larger and larger gay numbers, as time marches on.
No wierd family science at all.
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
The problems with assumptions
April 12, 2009 - 14:00 ET by CobraMan"In assuring me he was “born gay,” a friend of mine said he knew it from very early on; long before puberty that he was “different.”"
Your friend is ASSUMING he was "born gay," but that's a false assumption. There's a problem with assumptions like this . The problem is that you tend to observe thinks differently AFTER the assumption is made, especially when applying that assumption to your memories.. This is because you want to JUSTIFY that assumption so your assign false associations to anything that would "prove" your assumption correct.
Your "friend" didn't have any sexual tendencies BEFORE puberty, he just thinks he did because of his assumption. In other word, since he's applying a "born gay" assumption to his memories, he is fooling himself into thinking a non sexual association is actually an early sexual association, when that sexual association couldn't have happened.
Your friend want's to justify his homosexuality, so he's INVENTING a prepubescent sexual attraction that never existed. You see, humans don't have sexual tendencies (attractions) until puberty. This is because it isn't very helpful, genetically, to have sex when the body hasn't developed enough to breed. As a mater of fact, it's counter productive. That's why we HAVE puberty, so sexual attraction will occur AFTER the body is capable to reproduce.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
If my child is born gay I will pray for them to repent... since
April 12, 2009 - 13:29 ET by pahuberthey were never actually "born gay."
“We are all God’s creatures made in his image”
Then sin entered into the world by one man.
"and I think you will have taken a mighty step in understanding the natural and not so threatening world around you"
Sin is not natural. I was the curse thrust upon us due to the first Adam.
A propensity to sin or have sexual preferences to "shag baby" with any hot chick or dude should not be on the same level as skin color.
“We are all God’s
April 12, 2009 - 16:34 ET by Texasteacher“We are all God’s creatures made in his image”
I think dutchman just called God gay...
obama's notion of bi-partisanship is telling conservatives to shut up and do what he wants.
Yes. FD probably believes this to be true. Unfortunately, many
April 12, 2009 - 17:46 ET by pahuberso called "christians" will help him with this assertion even though it is directly mentioned in the Bible including the Gospels & directly by Jesus!
Many a liberal theologian today will help them all feel fuzzy... even though "narrow is the path..." and "broad is the road"...
Hello
April 12, 2009 - 19:13 ET by Flying_DutchmanHappy Easter!
Please don't assume what I believe.
FD
April 13, 2009 - 10:39 ET by pahuberI am only going by what you have posted. It seemed you were saying gay was natural and part of God's image.
And, hopefully, at some
April 13, 2009 - 08:09 ET by moderncommentaries83And, hopefully, at some point, gay rights groups will relaize it's not okay to discriminate against someone who disagrees with your behavior. The Constitution of the United States is explicitly clear: we have the RIGHT to free and unfettered expression of religion. If that means we think homosexual behavior is sinful and choose not to condone, endorse, support, or otherwise acknowledge it as "equal" to heterosexual behavior, that is our RIGHT.
We may all be God's creatures, but funny how that gets cherry-picked out of all the teachings regarding things like abortion, sexuality, marriage, and the constant, unchanging morality also preached by God. If you want us to treat everyone as equals, then you need to understand we hold everyone equally accountable under God's laws. There cannot, and should not, be special rules.
You can - as others have - try to interject raceism into this. They are not the same thing. Race is a genetic predisposition over which a person has no control.
Homosexuality, if if it is genetic, manifests itself in one's behavior (namely, engaging in sexual activity with a person of the same sex).
Traditional Catholic teaching holds that sex is reserved for marriage, a sacramental marriage where the purpose is to be open to and create new life. Any sexual activity outside the bonds of holy matrimony is sinful. It doesn't matter if it's a gay person or a straight person: you have sex outside of that sacramental marriage, it's a sin. Period.
Additionally, the Church is very clear that having same sex attraction (being gay) is no more sinful than being straight, but the behaviors (over which people have control) are the sin.
That's not discriminatory.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
If this sort of thing
April 12, 2009 - 12:39 ET by MrSnugglesIf this sort of thing continues, this country will be in another civil war.
Leave your conscience at home
April 12, 2009 - 13:45 ET by KC Mulville"In their role as a participant in the marketplace, they are being required to do that in a non-discriminatory way."
Required by who? Where does it say that in a "free" marketplace, I have to offer my products or services to anyone who requests it?
This argument is based on the absurd premise that once you enter the marketplace, you are not obliged by your own morality, but by the morality of your customers. Making this argument is, indeed, self-evidence of stupidity.
Again, this was all predicted...
April 12, 2009 - 14:21 ET by SlyrrAnyone who's studied the scriptures and also prophecies will have known that this kind of stuff was coming. 'Condemning the righteous for their righteousness, letting the guilty and the wicked go free because of their money'. It happened in old times, and the sentiment is still spreading today from all the same sources.
Keep your eyes out for this kind of thing to get even worse. The enemies of virtue are feelin' their cheerios right now, and they're out for blood. For all their talk about 'tolerance', they're the most intolerant and tyrannical people you'll ever meet.
The first weapon they'll use is mockery. So develop a resistence to scorn and derision, because it'll be used A) to try and destroy anyone who stands up for morality B) intimidate anyone else from standing up for what they believe.
Ironic that the communist secularists are using the language of 'tolerance' as a weapon to promulgate intolerance and tyranny of the most disgusting kind...
It's Tough...but "Being born Gay" is not in the Bible
April 12, 2009 - 15:22 ET by phshaw01As a Christian, I take no pleasure in the vitriol towards gays by many people of religion or the society at large. Most of the gays that I know are among the nicest people I have met. That said however, God and his Bible is very clear about this particular sin. He is not ambiguous on the subject. Anyone who claims this is being very disingenious and violates the very last command in the Bible (Revelation 22:18-19). There is simply no way of "forcing" a gay birth possibility out of the Bible. And even if there were, God commands us to repent of our sins (homosexuality and everything else), and turn from them and live for Him through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. It is incompatible to live for Christ and be gay. I say this not to condemn but to at least offer the Bible as the last authority on the subject. Of course, since God offers everyone a free will, people can choose to ignore this outlook and live however they please. However you do this to your eternal peril.
Scripture you quote is not a commandment Revelation was not
April 12, 2009 - 20:58 ET by Daniel Bakerthe last book written
-------------------------------------------
Google and Apple officially fought traditional marriage: . Please Boycott them. A Boycott changed McDonald's mind.
ethereal dutchman
April 12, 2009 - 15:32 ET by Wesen...you're a passionate spokesman for the "other team" but nobody's asked, if you could flip a switch and walk away with your family from homosexuality - would you?
tagq
April 12, 2009 - 17:19 ET by WesenThat's a good question wesen. Maybe he's thinking about it.
Barack Obama on Hate Crimes
April 12, 2009 - 16:15 ET by Retired GeekOpen Letter from Sen. Barack Obama
2008-03-05
With Sen. Barack Obama submitting an ad to run in LGBT newspapers in Texas and Ohio, he also submitted this letter:
Equality is a moral imperative. That's why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans.
In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation.
In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees.
And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Matthew Shepard Act would strengthen existing federal hate crime laws in three ways:
1) Expand the law to authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute certain bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Current law only includes race, color, religion or national origin.
2) Eliminate a serious limitation on federal involvment under existing law which requires that a victim of a bias-motivated crime was attacked because he/she was engaged in a specified federally-protected activity such as voting, serving on a jury or attending school.
3) Add "gender" and "gender identity" to the Hate Crimes Statistics Act
Why did the government become involved in marriage?
April 12, 2009 - 16:16 ET by Retired GeekModern Marriage started in 1753 in England and Wales and it was named the Marriage Act of 1753 or Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act and it called for the couple to be at least 21 years old and if they weren't then they needed the consent of the parent.
Before this law the couple could be as young as seven years old and get married.
They also had to get married in a church or the marriage wouldn't be legal.
The original Marriage Act was the result of the many orphans being abandoned and becoming a burden on society.
The Marriage contract made men responsible for their children relieving society from the financial burden of raising those children and placing it where it belonged.
'Collectivists' always want to take the 'Bad Decisions' and actions of individuals and place the results of those bad actions and decisions on othe American Citizens in the name of 'Sacrifice For The Common Good'.
The Marriage act NEVER had anything to do with sexual preferences but rather the protection of children - which Homosexuals cannot have by definition.
Homosexuals want the rights and benefits extended to those who conceive and bear children even though they are incapable of procreation.
Society by law, decided to extend benefits to the blind.
Analogous to what Homosexuals want by 'Homosexual Marriage' is for a sighted citizen to receive the same rights as someone who is blind.
Homosexuals immediately respond by citing instances where a man and woman are married that are incapable of procreation, because of medical issues.
Present laws do NOT require a medical exam to prove the ability of a couple to procreate before marriage which of course would be a violation of privacy rights.
Every American Citizen has the same right to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex as any other American Citizen.
Are Homosexuals the 'Missing Link'?
April 12, 2009 - 16:21 ET by Retired GeekWhen humans found their selves on planet Earth one thing became apparent that little nature gives one is suited for survival and must be transformed to meet their needs.
Survival meant learning to gather, hunt, clothe, make shelter, fire - and procreate.
Homosexuals would not and could not survive 'Naturally', because of the lack of procreation.
Homosexuals by nature are doomed to destruction and are in a constant war with nature and natural selection.
Homosexuals are an aberration of nature and natural law and genetic codes.
What separates humans from animals?
Humans are able to make choices, based on facts, logic and reason, animals cannot.
Homosexuals and their apologists, replace that ability, with chemical predestination or genetics.
This is a doctrine of animal husbandry that is appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.
Homosexuals believe their ability to choose, their convictions, values and character are determined before they are born, by physical forces beyond their control.
This is nothing more than an ignorant version of the doctrine of innate ideas - or of inherited knowledge or lack of knowledge - which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science.
Humans can 'Choose' to have sex with the opposite sex, Homosexuals claim they cannot.
Are Homosexuals the 'Missing Link' between humans and animals?
To me it's not about
April 12, 2009 - 17:48 ET by Radical1979To me it's not about homosexuality at all, it's about freedom of religion. Not performing an act, such as photographing a picture, or not doing a medical procedure that has nothing to do with saving a life, does not inherently hurt someone. All of us must be free to act as our conscience dictates, provided it does not harm another. When the government does not gives us that freedom, it is exactly what the founding fathers tried to prevent, government interference in the practice of religion. That is the true meaning of separation of church and state. This is what frightens me about these laws.
It's amazing how the
April 12, 2009 - 18:10 ET by snaggletoothieIt's amazing how the politically correct gene tends to twist things. This started as a discussion of how political correctness and gay rights advocates have trod on the first amendment. But it soon descended into a way too weird argument about unrelated and unprovable aspects of homosexuality. Why get lost over meaningless issues while the lefties destroy the constitution?
snaggletoothie... Points
April 12, 2009 - 18:14 ET by bigtimersnaggletoothie...
Points well made....but it always seems to happen. ;-)
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
But if the lefties destroy
April 12, 2009 - 18:37 ET by snaggletoothieBut if the lefties destroy the first amendment we might not even be able to argue about why or how or when gays are gay.
Gay Rights Are Incompatible With Judeo Christian Values
April 12, 2009 - 20:50 ET by Blue Collar ToddThe war against traditional values is heating up. Liberals are using many fronts in this war and advancing gay rights is just one of them.
Their Homosexual Behavior will never be accepted by billions
April 12, 2009 - 21:05 ET by Daniel BakerNo matter how much force they use.
-------------------------------------------
Google and Apple officially fought traditional marriage: . Please Boycott them. A Boycott changed McDonald's mind.
True Christians
April 13, 2009 - 00:03 ET by wingnut55When this country attacks the Christian church and demands that they accept homosexuals as equals. We will see who the true Christians are. The church in America may have to go underground to worship the Lord. The Bible tells us that God will always have some who "will not bow the knee to Baal". That will be the time that God takes His hand of blessing from the United States of America.
Must have really irked 'non believers'
April 13, 2009 - 08:09 ET by Southern voterto watch the TV coverage all afternoon on Easter Sunday the 'Easter Miracle'...the rescue of a Catholic captive, Captain Phillips ...and all the references to the thanksgiving of prayers answered ...all on Easter Sunday ....go figure !!
No matter what is written or proposed in the media or by the 'non believers' God always has the last word...!!!! never give up hope...
God Bless America !!! stand up, stand up , stand up and fight for our values....
And what's up with ABC
April 13, 2009 - 10:54 ET by TexasteacherAnd what's up with ABC broadcasting "The Ten Commandments"?? I even heard a commercial refer to Easter as "Spring Holiday".
obama's notion of bi-partisanship is telling conservatives to shut up and do what he wants.
Gays aren't interested in
April 13, 2009 - 13:21 ET by RR GOPGays aren't interested in equality any more than racist minorities are.
They expect people to walk up to them and ask them: "Say there, are you gay? Well, Sir (Ma'am) this is the happiest day of my life! May I shake your hand? Thank you, thank you, thank you for being gay!"
They want acceptance, that is, they expect people like me to be OK with males sodomizing each other and the like. They want ascendancy, that is, they want to be viewed as being superior because they like to go down on members of their own sex, and that that somehow leads to greater creativity and intelligence.
The emotional baggage of gays is incredible, and if no one knows that, they don't know too many gays. Some heteros do, too, and some express that in sexual ways as well as in other self-destructive ways...but I don't see them organizing to have their particular kinks become validated by Society, the government or religious organizations.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).