 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u |
2003.08.11 Proponents of homosexual practice have deliberately misconstrued the U.S. Supreme Court decision last 2003.06 that struck down a Texas law against sodomy. The intent of the Supreme Court decision was to keep the police and government out of the private bedroom, not to legislate governmental normalization or approval of homosexual practice.
This explains why a 2003.07 Gallup poll found that 49% opposition to homosexual “civil unions” in 2003.05 had jumped to 57%. Contrary to what TV series and movies would have us believe, the majority of Americans – 53% according to the latest General Social Survey in 2002 – stated that homosexual sex is always wrong (New York Times Weekly Review, 2003.08.10). That figure is sure to have jumped higher, matching the results of the Gallup poll. The majority of American oppose homosexual “normalization.” Vigilantism and “street justice” dispensed against homosexuals must be fought as firmly as any other vigilantism and “street justice.” However, neither is this any approval or acceptance of homosexuality. It is only the proponents of homosexuality, a minority, who create the spin (propaganda) that opposition to homosexuality is intolerance or bigotry. Homosexuality is being slickly, and slyly. packaged; and, with the support of Hollywood liberals and the libera media, their desensitization campaign is affecting the public. Those who stand for the Bible must be firm in opposing the inroads of homosexuality that are being used to desensitize our children, especially through TV, movies and "news" reporting. You can be VERY effective by writing letters of complaint to the TV networks and writing the CEO and Customer Relations department of companies who sponsor offensive "desensitization" shows. We agree with the decision to keep the government out of the private bedroom unless something harmful to society is occurring in that private bedroom. Certainly, neither that nor the Supreme Court decision constitutes acceptance of homosexual practice in public! Pundits consistently fail to draw this distinction in their discourse. Neither are the adverse affects of homosexuality on society (Part 2) being discussed in public forums. No reasonable person would argue that the police and government have no right to intervene in a rape or pedophile act being conducted in a private bedroom. The question then is larger: Is homosexual practice really a harmless and victimless act? If not – and Homosexual Practice, & Pedophilia and Part 2 show that it is neither harmless to society nor victimless – then opposing homosexuality is neither a matter of bigotry nor tolerance, but a matter of social urgency. Scientific studies need to be conducted to learn more about the relationships between undesirable activities discussed in Homosexual Practice, & Pedophilia and Part 2 in order to determine whether or not homosexual activities conducted in private bedrooms is a threat to society. In no case, however, is there any justification in any of this to argue for acceptance or normalization of homosexuality in America. While homosexuals should be protected from vigilantism and “street justice” like anyone else (including pedophiles and rapists), it remains an immoral abhorrence to decent people and a pioneer of societal decadence rightly abhorred by Muslims and religious Jews worldwide. No rights or privileges should be extended to encourage an immoral abhorrence. On the contrary, denial of the rights and privileges of marriage should be continued to discourage this immoral abhorrence and affront to decent people.
 |
|
 |