DirtyHarryY2K
Since Jul 14, 2004
|
|
DirtyHarryY2K
Since Jul 14, 2004
| |||||
|
| ||||||
The Honorable John Jay; original Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the Constitution said: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice, 1833; "The American population is entirely Christian and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard."
President George Washington; in his 1796 farewell address said: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vein would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds; reason and experience, both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
President John Adams; "We have no government armed with power which is capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and a religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." President Thomas Jefferson; "Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?
Benjamin Franklin; "He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world."
Noah Webster; "The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All miseries and evils which men suffer from, vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."
Our founders never intended for Freedom to be the trophy of depravity.
While you're at it you should research the history of this nations "sodomy laws"
Sexual perversion is not a "civil right"
Folks, this issue isn't about "Consenting adults" or "bedroom privacy" or "individual or civil rights" like the advocates of homosexual marriage dishonestly and vehemently insist.
"Gay Marriage" is the "Trojan horse" method of attack by homosexual activists and advocacy groups in the effort to legitimize the perverse behavior of homosexuality in the courts and by legislation. Should homosexual marriage be legalized then by judicial fiat homosexuality would be legitimized across the board. This means that school children by law would be taught that homosexual behavior is a "safe" and "normal" alternative "sexual lifestyle" choice and by law parents will have no grounds to object (regardless of the negative spiritual, moral, psychological, biological, and medical consequences) IOW unconditional approval and acceptance, kowtow or else.
Your help is desperately needed to oppose it. Please go to www.abolishgaymarriage.org and sign the petition that is being used to fight at the federal, state, and local levels of government.
Discrimination: is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement. In normal usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias against a person. "Irrational" is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice. In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, as with multi-culturalism, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination. Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.
Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. The "gay" movement has exploited this association to legitimize its own claims by adding itself to the list of minorities in anti-discrimination statutes.
Moral discrimination is "rational" discrimination.
Homophobia:
This term is probably the most outrageous invention of the "gay" sophists. the illogic of homophobia is insultingly blatant.
Originally, homophobia was psychiatric jargon invented to describe a person's fear of homosexual inclinations in him or herself. "Gay" activists simply stole the term and redefined it as "hate and/or fear of homosexuals."
As a rhetorical weapon, homophobia is unequaled. It serves first to define anyone who opposes the legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot. The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent "gay bashers" and hateful fanatics. When they use the term they want people to think about the killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong.
Secondly, the term defines opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. "Gay" activists take special delight in this since it was scant decades ago that homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry (removed by the political maneuvering of homosexual activists in a 1973 vote of the members of the American Psychiatric Association without a shred of scientific evidence or proof that homosexuality is a normal immutable human quality).
Thirdly, the term serves as the semantic equivalent of "racist," helping the "gay" movement to further indoctrinate the public with the notion that opposition to homosexuality is equivalent to prejudice against racial minorities.
The use of the term is in itself religious discrimination because it implicitly disparages and declares illegitimate the religious teachings of several major world religions. Adoption of the term by government constitutes a prima facie violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the endorsement or inhibition of religion.
Excerpt from Gay marriage 'rights'
Gay marriage 'rights'
www.townhall.com ^ | December 31, 2004 | Thomas Sowell
Posted on 12/31/2004 2:46:20 PM CST by DirtyHarryY2K
The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.
If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.
The rhetoric of "equal rights" has become the road to special privilege for all sorts of groups, so perhaps it was inevitable that gay activists would take that road as well. It has worked. They have already succeeded in getting far more government money for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people.
The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to special privileges -- for anybody -- and gay marriage is as good an issue on which to do so as anything else.
Incidentally, it is not even clear how many homosexuals actually want marriage, even though gay activists are pushing it.
What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS.
They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called "AIDS education" or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality. In some cases, gay activists actually come to the schools, not only to promote homosexuality as an idea but even to pass out the addresses of local gay hangouts to the kids.
There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it. That our schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering.