News report Obama would advance h...agenda

[lynnmosher]

News report on a letter written by Obama...

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=68949

[Xenia]

I just don't get it! The only way to understand this type of mentality is to recognize that there is a spiritual battle going on. I can almost see the powers and principalities (as a single icon) with one hand on the marionette strings and the other snapping it's fingers for more Turkish delight! I need to spend more time in prayer...

[Ransom v. Unman]

Well, maybe he just wants to avoid using governmental policies to marginalise and oppress a people group based on what they, as consenting adults, have decided they wish to sexually pursue...

[Rebecca]

My problem with this is that forcing a homosexual agenda erodes the rights of other citizens that disagree with the lifestyle choice. In addition, it undermines the very foundation of our society--traditional marriage and family.

I don't agree with practicing homosexual behavior. I also don't believe I have the right to tell people what they can (or can't) do in their own bedrooms, as long as it's not hurting or abusing someone else.

What I do object to is forcing people who disagree with homosexual acts to validate those acts. That's a violation of my civil rights.

If the homosexual activists have their way, we'll head the same direction as much of Europe--establishing a sort of "thought police" that criminalize folks who dare speak any disagreement of the homosexual agenda. I know personally that already, pastors are being jailed in Sweden (http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/CWN/091004sweden.aspx) for speaking against homosexuality in the pulpit. Trust me when I say given the current climate, America isn't far behind.

And what about those who own a business? Will I be fined or jailed because I don't want to hire a cross-dresser to sit at the receptionist desk of my Christian web design company? Isn't it my right as an American citizen to decide who I hire?

As far as the "forcing our morality on others" debate--of course we force morality on others. In many cases, it's necessary. Who among us wants to "tolerate" rapists, child molesters, or the practice of bestiality? Shall we allow a man and his German Shepherd to marry, next? How about a man and his own daughter? You can see where I'm going with this--there are social and governmental norms in place by necessity, and that's a good thing.

One of my biggest beefs with the "homosexual rights" movement is that they falsely equate it with civil rights. As a woman (and a genuine minority) I find this insulting. Homosexuality is a behavior one chooses to pursue, not a skin color, gender, or nationality. No laws were ever in place that declared a homosexual the "property" of straight people, such as were in place for both blacks and women. No homosexual was ever denied the right to vote because of his bedroom practices. No homosexual was ever routinely paid less than a man for the same work (or forced into slavery) because of his bedroom practices. Equating (what should be a private) sexual practice with the genuine civil rights movement is incredibly offensive.

I'm veering a bit off topic here, so I'll attempt to bring it back by saying this: Using the power of the Presidential office to advance a homosexual agenda is wrong. If we're going to enforce such sweeping changes in law and policies, the American people must be given a say. Let's put any reforms to a vote of the people. That's the democratic way, the American way. It's the only fair way. Using the Presidential office as a dictatorship, to force laws the citizens don't want, is despicable.

Bekka

[Ransom v. Unman]

Using the Presidential office as a dictatorship, to force laws the citizens don't want, is despicable.

Well, let's not pretend either that Christains haven't done the same thing...

[lynnmosher]

Bekka, You said a mouthful! And I agree totally! And isn't there a bill out there somewhere that is trying to squeeze into the system on the very subject of thought police? Or has it died? I haven't heard in a while.

[Rebecca]

Well, let's not pretend either that Christains haven't done the same thing...

Sure, and to a much lesser extent, that's expected. The Presidential office does (rightfully) wield a certain amount of power. However, when it comes to something as major as uprooting the very basis of our society--traditional marriage and family--and denying a certain class of people their right to freedom of thought and speech, a much higher standard is in order. Change of this magnitude is too powerful for one person to sign off on. Change like this needs to be enacted (or denied) by a vote of the American people.


Bekka, You said a mouthful! And I agree totally! And isn't there a bill out there somewhere that is trying to squeeze into the system on the very subject of thought police? Or has it died? I haven't heard in a while.

I haven't heard of such a thing, but I'm interested to know more. If you find any info on this, please post a link for me. :)

Bekka

[lynnmosher]

Here are some links on this topic...

http://www.afa.net/colson050107.asp (http://www.afa.net/colson050107.asp)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1592 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1592)
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1592.html (http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1592.html)
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=519 (http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=519)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55509 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55509)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/19/5320/ (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/19/5320/)

[lynnmosher]

I checked the links to see if they worked. All did except the first one. Might just be me or the timing.

[Rebecca]

Interesting. Thank you for posting those links, Lynn. Funny thing, the first one worked for me, so maybe it was a brief server outage.

Rebecca

[lynnmosher]

You're welcome, Bekka!