Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JonathanChance · 03-31-2003, 06:48 PM

I can't believe my paper printid this op-ed piece written by this right-wing, fundamentalist, bigoted jerk!!!

Quote:

Cal Thomas

What should be made legal next?

While the war overseas continues, so does another war at home.

The latest battle in the culture war was fought Wednesday (March 26) on Supreme Court turf. At issue is a Texas "homosexual conduct law" that forbids sodomy.

Before the Supreme Court rules that the Founders had the right to practice sodomy in mind when they wrote the Constitution, we should ask where the chipping away at law and morality is leading us.

Once sodomy is made legal, what's next? How about polygamy? As we have been reminded in the case of Utah's Elizabeth Smart and her abduction by a practicing polygamist, there are people who believe they have a right to that sexual and relational preference. If sodomy is legalized, can polygamists then ask the Supreme Court to end the prohibition against their "right" to engage in sex with and "marry" multiple partners? If not, on what legal grounds will they be refused? To listen to the attorneys for the Texas men seeking redress of their sexual grievances, a decision to strike down the Texas anti-sodomy law should be based on "changing times" and public opinion polls.

Pedophiles who wish to have sex with children assert they should not be prohibited from doing so as long as the child "consents." There is a movement within psychiatry to have pedophilia removed from the shrinking list of "deviant" behaviors, as was done with homosexual practice. What is to prohibit them from doing so if pedophiles testify their fulfillment is being denied, and they feel discriminated against for practicing what, to them, is normal? Since truth is now in the mind and genitalia of the beholder, how can anyone with a different mindset (or different genitalia) tell anyone else how and when to engage in any sexual act in which he or she might wish to indulge?

Former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal on March 26 in which he argued in favor of the "gay rights" position opposing the Texas law. Simpson said "the proper Republican vision of equality" is "live and let live." Simpson thinks that laws against homosexual practice "are contrary to American values protecting personal liberty .."

What Simpson argues for is not liberty but license. There is a profound difference between the traditional understanding and definition of liberty and that of license. Liberty is presumed to depend on personal responsibility. I like one of the Webster definitions of liberty: "permission to go freely within specified limits." In contrast, "license" can mean "disregard for rules of personal conduct: licentiousness."

Several conservative groups filed amicus briefs supporting the law. The one by the Family Research Council sums up the major arguments in favor: "(1) The law has historically respected and protected the marital union and has distinguished it from acts outside that union, such as fornication, adultery and sodomy. To extend to homosexual sodomy the same protections given to the marital union would undermine the definition of marriage and could lead to homosexual marriage; (2) In order to recognize a non-textual constitutional right to sodomy, the Court must find sodomy to be deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition. In fact, laws banning sodomy are deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition; (3) Protecting marriage, upholding morality and seeking to ensure public health is more than enough for Texas to prove it has a 'rational basis' behind its law .."

The law is supposed to set parameters for a society. In the past, the law has been viewed as something that flowed from a Law-giver, outside of the reach of humankind to create or manipulate. But since humanity now sees itself as the law-maker (the breaking of that ancient Law is now celebrated in personal behavior and encouraged in film, in magazines and on TV), who is to say whose morality, if any morality, should prevail? Having made "choice" the ultimate determiner for abortion, it would not surprise me if the Supreme Court cites the so-called "right to privacy" in this case and replays its mistake in Roe vs. Wade, which struck down another Texas law.

Adoption laws in some states now give children to same-sex couples. If the Texas sodomy law falls, "marriage" will be redefined and the demise of the human family will be complete.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I'm straight and even I'm offended!

Philosoft · 03-31-2003, 07:35 PM

What I don't understand, among pretty much everything about this impenetrable ultra-conservative position, is the "demise of the family" logic. How does allowing homosexuals to marry each other endanger the existing or potential relationships of heterosexuals?

lpetrich · 03-31-2003, 07:59 PM

That's what some people to think -- that the legitimacy of heterosexuality must somehow be affirmed, and that the way to do that is to reject alternatives.

lisarea · 03-31-2003, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
What I don't understand, among pretty much everything about this impenetrable ultra-conservative position, is the "demise of the family" logic. How does allowing homosexuals to marry each other endanger the existing or potential relationships of heterosexuals?

Well, aside from the obvious, in that gay parents teach gayness to their children, it is a lesser known fact that, if you look at or condone gayness, it turns you gay, too.

Once we're all gay, then there won't be any more babies.

And I can't think of a more pressing problem these days than the dwindling human population. If we don't resolve this problem and soon, the whole human race is just going to disappear in a big gay puff of smoke.

keyser_soze · 03-31-2003, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lisarea
Well, aside from the obvious, in that gay parents teach gayness to their children, it is a lesser known fact that, if you look at or condone gayness, it turns you gay, too.

Once we're all gay, then there won't be any more babies.

And I can't think of a more pressing problem these days than the dwindling human population. If we don't resolve this problem and soon, the whole human race is just going to disappear in a big gay puff of smoke.

:notworthy

Philosoft · 04-01-2003, 07:47 AM

Lis, that's got to be the gayest thing I've ever heard.

lisarea · 04-01-2003, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Lis, that's got to be the gayest thing I've ever heard.

True. I've already been turned gay by society.

In my case, I was hit on the head by a bingo board and that turned me into a big lesbian. So it's already too late for me, but if just one person hears my story and learns from it, it will have all been worthwhile.

Godless Dave · 04-01-2003, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lisarea
And I can't think of a more pressing problem these days than the dwindling human population. If we don't resolve this problem and soon, the whole human race is just going to disappear in a big gay puff of smoke.

You are mis-stating their argument. The pressing problem is the dwindling white evangelical Christian human population. How often do you see a picture of a non-white baby on anti-abortion propaganda?

<bitter sarcasm>If gay marriage is allowed, then thousands, nay millions, of people will leave their spouses to shack up with a member of the same sex. Because homosexual behavior is so tempting the only thing that keeps people from resisting the massive homosexual urges we all have is to shackle them in heterosexual marriage as soon as possible. Instead of validating a perverted lifestyle the government should be encouraging people to stay in loveless marriages engaging in joyless sex (solely for purposes of procreation) like good Christians.
</bitter sarcasm>

dk · 04-01-2003, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
What I don't understand, among pretty much everything about this impenetrable ultra-conservative position, is the "demise of the family" logic. How does allowing homosexuals to marry each other endanger the existing or potential relationships of heterosexuals?

Many people don't recognize the legitimacy of gays because they find the culture pernicious, promiscuous, sadistic, sterile, self destructive, drug ridden, disease ridden and immoral. Apart from the affect of gay culture upon social norms, sexual norms, maritial norms, MDR microbes, and public education they don't have a problem.

Philosoft · 04-01-2003, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
Many people don't recognize the legitimacy of gays because they find the culture pernicious, promiscuous, sadistic, sterile, self destructive, drug ridden, disease ridden and immoral. Apart from the affect of gay culture upon social norms, sexual norms, maritial norms, MDR microbes, and public education they don't have a problem.

Yeah, I was just wondering if there was a logical argument to be made that showed how homosexual marriage would be directly detrimental to heterosexual marriage.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-31-2003, 07:35 PM	#2
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	What I don't understand, among pretty much everything about this impenetrable ultra-conservative position, is the "demise of the family" logic. How does allowing homosexuals to marry each other endanger the existing or potential relationships of heterosexuals?

03-31-2003, 07:59 PM	#3
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	That's what some people to think -- that the legitimacy of heterosexuality must somehow be affirmed, and that the way to do that is to reject alternatives.

04-01-2003, 07:47 AM	#6
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Lis, that's got to be the gayest thing I've ever heard.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.