The journey from there to here
I'm pretty much a live and let live kinda guy when it comes to personal lifestyle choices. And I speak up against injustice when it shows up.

But I am sick and tired of the gay rights movement and its attempt to push an agenda.

The truth is gay rights are NOT civil rights. To imply such is to imply that they have been DENIED civil rights. That they have been treated as a second class of citizens, when in fact, they have not. They are subject to the EXACT same laws as straights. There is no separate speed limit for gays, no separate schools, separate water fountains, separate lunch counters. They are not denied the vote, they are not denied any of the Bill of Rights. None of the rights that apply to straights are denied to gays.

What they are trying to do is normalize a behaviour. The Bill of Rights was never meant to apply protected status to a behaviour. It was meant to prevent the government from infringing on rights of the people.

That being said, historically there WAS one type of discrimination against gays, but that discrimination has been rectified. I'm talking, of course, about sodomy laws that, while they didn't ban homosexual urges, they did ban expressions of their passion.

If gays want to be regarded as ordinary citizens, they should first ACT like ordinary citizens. As it stands, though, they are asking for specialized status, to be treated with a certain deference and priority that outlaws the thoughts and actions of those who oppose them. If they have their way, eventually churches who oppose their behaviour will be criminalized, ironically further infringing on the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

"Gay rights" is a farce; it's an agenda. And it is an agenda we should wholeheartedly oppose.
Comments (Page 5)
5 PagesFirst 3 4 5 
on Jul 06, 2007
Nobody.
on Jul 08, 2007
then why was Utha forced to abandon polygamy to enter the Union?


What lulu said, cikomyr.

I strongly suggest you read the Constitution. That you would even assume polygamy to be unConstitutional shows you have little understanding of its purpose. The Constitution was not written to "give" us rights...it was written to RESTRICT the authority and reach of the government. It wasn't written for the citizens, but for the government.

You are not alone in your ignorance of the Constitution, though. I've found it to be pretty widespread. So much so that I'm strongly considering purchasing hundreds of pocket constitutions to hand out at parades and public places.
on Jul 09, 2007
ignorance of the Constitution, though. I've found it to be pretty widespread. So much so that I'm strongly considering purchasing hundreds of pocket constitutions to hand out at parades and public places.


COOL! Yeh, that's the ticket. I think that you can most likely get dozens from your local congressman.
on Jul 09, 2007
You are not alone in your ignorance of the Constitution, though. I've found it to be pretty widespread. So much so that I'm strongly considering purchasing hundreds of pocket constitutions to hand out at parades and public places.


Ya know, I like this idea. It's one of those ideas you say, "hey, why didn't I think of this?"

on Jul 09, 2007
I don't know if the congressmen have a copy either.

You didn't think of it, KFC, because you would have handed out pocket Bibles instead! I think we should hand out combined pocket Constitution/NT Bibles, because the one has become useless without the other anyway. Do I have the freedom to include a Bible with the Constitution, or will I get arrested for unseparating church and state?
5 PagesFirst 3 4 5