Kennedy, LIBERAL REPUBLICANS, Urge Protection for Homosexuals

Cybercast News Service. ^ | May 05, 2003 | Lawrence Morahan

[Cap'n Crunch]

Yeah, and the deviants are the ones who want to do it.

[ArGee]

So much for the republic.

Stick a fork in Western Civilization - it's done.

Shalom.

[george wythe]

"It also will infringe upon people's freedom of speech and their religious freedoms. We're seeing this happen in Canada, where pastors and other people cannot say that homosexuality is a sin. That is now considered a hate crime, and that is exactly what's going to happen here in the United States,"

An inflammatory statement devoid of facts.

Even after quoting obscure sources and biased news services, you could not find not even one priest or minister who has been fined or imprisoned in Canada for calling homosexual acts a sin.

Then to substantiate the second part of your emotionally irrational statement, you cite a case about Owens, a Canadian who has published Bible verses in newspapers to coincide with Gay Pride Week without any legal repercussion.

He was only restricted from publishing an ad with an editorial cartoon and Bible citations.

Somehow a prohibition against inflammatory cartoons is equal to banning the Bible.

So sad when someone becomes so obssessed with one issue that he ends up disregarding truth and accuracy.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Any info on who these 175 law enforcement agencies may be?

[Desdemona]

The repeal of the 1st Amendment, maybe? That is a scary thought.

The thing about the first amendment people seem to forget is that you can say whatever you want - and your enemies are free to do the same. Repression, or "chilling effects", yes, is forbidden, but there are many people who do not speak their minds, especially on moral topics, as they will be figuratively tarred and feathered.

[Cap'n Crunch]

So what is your stance on all this, if I may ask?

[Zack Nguyen]

From an article entitled, "Too Big to Ignore" by Mark Hartwig, from "Teachers in Focus " magazine.

"In Canada, homosexual activists have already made great headway toward silencing the message of hope. There, hate-speech laws prohibit any statement that is "likely to expose a person or group of persons to hatred or contempt" because of "race, color, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age."

What is more, the laws don't require prosecutors to show malicious intent or actual harm. Indeed, courts in some Canadian jurisdictions have ruled that it doesn't even matter if the statements are true.

The United States is not far behind. Although there is no national hate-speech law yet, schools are under increasing pressure to suppress any message warning students about the harmful consequences of homosexual behavior--or telling them that homosexuals can change."

Here is a link to the article. (Sorry, I am not sure how to produce a hyperlink.):

http://www.family.org/cforum/teachersmag/firstwrites/a0013000.html

[lurky]

Repression, or "chilling effects", yes, is forbidden, but there are many people who do not speak their minds, especially on moral topics, as they will be figuratively tarred and feathered.

What is the difference between the "chilling effects" of the Dixie Chix and Santorum? Answer: there is no difference. Both "chilling effects" are essentially cowardice.

[ThomasMore]

I'll be seeing the good Father Groeschel on the 17th. My cousin is a deacon in the CFRs and will be ordained a priest on the 17th. I'll be diaconating his first Mass that evening down in the south Bronx, Fort Apache.

Fr. Benedict is one of the best! What a sense of humor as well. I remember hearing the tape with that particular quote. He prophetically accused the liberal politicians of setting up the schism between the liberal church and the remnant, declaring the latter a homophobic and hatefilled rogue church at odds with civil law. That's how they'll confiscate all we have and give it to the liberal apostates.

I think Donna Steichen also predicted (Ungodly Rage) that we will be forced back to the catecombs.

[george wythe]

There is a difference between claiming that people cannot say that homosexuality is a sin and discriminating against people because they look gay.

The first case is about freedom of speech, the second case is about freedom of association.

Again, you fail the most basic fact-checking test.

I hire subcontractors to work for me all the time, some of these subcontractors are companies run by people who look gay.

Nevertheless, I still have the right to call homosexuality a sin, and everytime we have had such discussions at my office, I have stated that homosexual acts are sinful.

There is a big difference between my right to express my Bible-based opinions and my right to refuse to do business with companies that are represented by people who look gay.

[Desdemona]

A "chilling effect" occurs before the mouth opens, not after. What happens after is tarring and feathering.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Is that drawing in post 55 what you consider an inflammatory cartoon?

Or was there something more inside?

[lurky]

Yeah, and the deviants are the ones who want to do it.

You seriously think homosexuals want to repeal the 1st Amendment. Well I can't help you with paranoia.

So what's to be done then? In concrete, realistic and practical terms.

[george wythe]

So what is your stance on all this, if I may ask?

Truth, not hysteria.

The Bible is very clear on this matter, but some of these "Christian" newsletter and websites deliberately distort the facts to fundraise using the boogymen du jour.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Wow, that's great! Say some prayer's for me, I'd like to be a Deacon some day.

Don't know how it will square with Church teaching but I'll be taking my M-14 with me to the catacombs.

I was lucky enough to take a tour of the catacombs when I was in the service and took a USO Tour to Rome.

[GSWarrior]

So sad when someone becomes so obssessed with one issue that he ends up disregarding truth and accuracy.

Sad, yes. But it should come as no surprise. Folks of this ilk seemingly have no choice but to behave as they do. IMO, they fear God will look disfavorably on them unless they fight the homosexual agenda with whatever means necessary. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact I admire their diligence and commitment.

But their insistence that the Government do God's work will forever marginalize them.

[brownie]

No, we have laws respecting freedom of speech. Also, all conservatives should be against "hate crime" laws, as they are merely a way of criminalizing speech and/or thought. I.e., is it a worse crime to kill someone b/c you want his money or b/c you don't like his race? It seems to me that both murders are just as bad. However, w/ hate crimes law they punish the thoughts the person had/has. In other words, we'll start today w/ certain groups we want to give extra stuff to (black, hispanic, homosexual). Once that is accepted as normal and constitutional, what kind of thoughts/speech will be criminalized next?

[lurky]

What happens after is tarring and feathering.

[rolling eyes] What is the difference between the "tarring and feathering" of the Dixie Chix and Santorum. Answer: Santorum is still in a position of power, doesn't have to answer to consumers and hasn't taken a financial hit (that we can see, at least). In fact, it could be argued that he's gotten a financial boost! Other than these, the difference = zilch.

[george wythe]

If you want to believe that mosquitoes transmit the HIV virus, you go ahead and believe it.

If you want to believe that priests are being imprisoned and fined in Canada because they call homosexual acts a sin, you go ahead and believe it.

If you want to believe that average people are being imprisoned and fined in Canada because they call homosexual acts a sin, you go ahead and believe it.

Make sure you mail your check to James Dobson to prevent the homosexual mafia from doing the same here in America.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Oh, they won't repeal the first ammendment, but they will try to have their protection laws passed so they can file heavy lawsuits and have people thrown in jail for 'discriminating' against them.

That's better than repealing, heck, take their money and put them in jail, can't beat that.