Replies

"We have to win people's hearts and minds first before we can get back to the point of enshrining those principles in law."

I think Sprigg is referring to the populace as a whole not the perverts. A brief glance at what gay activists have managed to accomplish by arguing that gay civil rights are analagous to the same thing as civil rights for "people of color" has been extremely effective in changing large amounts of public opinion. What would've been unacceptable only ten years ago is now supported by a large number of people. Just some examples: domestic partner status in companies, statutes including sexual-orientation under the same protective status as race, religion and national origin, gay sensitivity courses and policies in public education including grammar school, the push for gay marriages and of course we all know the boy scouts are bigots because they discriminate against homosexuals. By the way, the New Jersey Supreme court found the Boy Scouts guilty of violating the state's anti-discrimination laws because of their stance regarding homosexuality. If one was to go out and do a simple poll of people at work let's say, you'll probably find that more than 50% have bought the Lie that homosexuality is somewhat analagous to race and so it makes perfect sense that the Boy Scouts banning Gays is as wrong as if they banned Blacks. That's why you have to change hearts and minds because people have bought into these lies. At one time, it was you should show tolerance and acceptance which to most right-thinking people made a lot of sense. But look at what's evolved in such a short time from that. As for pedophiles, hell it's just an alternative livestyle. What could possibly be wrong with that. Recently in Britain they lowered the age of consent to 16 for homosexuals. And for gay activists in this country lowering the age of consent is right up top there with gay marriage. If they can get passed those obstacles they're home free. A few years back there was a proposition on Colorado's ballot. It actually passed but was later declared unconstitutional, I think by the Colorado Supreme Court. The gist of the proposition was to prevent municipalities from grouping gays under the same non-discriminary laws which applied to race etc. The interesting thing was the proposition classified homosexuality as a perversion along with sado-masochism, bestiality, pedophilia and a few others that I can't quite remember. My newspaper printed an editorial about how wrong this was because indeed sado-masochism, bestiality, and pedophilia were perversions, but homosexuality wasn't a perversion, it was a sexual-orientation. My reaction was boy! we really established the truth there haven't we. And I thought of the wise man who asked someone, "If I decided to call a sheep's tail a leg then how many legs would a sheep have?" The person responded,"five." To this the wiseman said, "Wrong--four; just because I choose to call a sheep's tale a leg doesn't necessarilly make it so." The gay activists have been very good at convincing people that a sheep's tail is a leg.