By Thomas Sowell
Read the article in Human Events.
The portrayal of same-sex "marriage" as a "civil rights" issue is outrageous, but if you repeat the lie often enough, gullible people will buy into it. As Thomas Sowell points out, "Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government" but rather "a restriction on the rights they already have." Homosexuals already had the right to enter into any contracts they wanted, write wills as they pleased, vote, etc. These are civil rights.
So the issue is not individual rights, Sowell points out. "What the activists are seeking is offical 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."
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Strategy for Restoring Sexual Sanity
By the Rev. Earle Fox
Speaking the truth with compassion.
Read about the roots of our society's "pansexual" plague, and what we can do to halt it.
Speaking the truth with compassion.
Read about the roots of our society's "pansexual" plague, and what we can do to halt it.
How Homosexual Extremists Have Controlled the Debate
DECIPHERING 'GAY' WORD-SPEAK AND LANGUAGE OF CONFUSION
By Scott D. Lively, Esq. (2002)
If you've never stopped to think about the danger of accepting and employing the term "sexual orientation", you'd better read this article. Lively is the co-author of The Pink Swastika (which documents the important role of pagan homosexual perversion in the Third Reich), and heads Abiding Truth Ministries.
"He who defines the terms controls the debate -- and by extension, public opinion. On this issue the terms have been defined (in many cases invented) by the talented sophists of the 'gay' movement. ...
"Among the most common terms and concepts in the 'gay rights' debate are: homosexuality, sexual orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-culturalism, inclusiveness, discrimination, homophobia and tolerance. These words and phrases are used by 'gay' sophists to frame the question of homosexuality as a civil rights issue. It is a context chosen to favor homosexuals to the extent that they cast themselves as victims and their opponents as oppressors, yet even within this context, 'gay' arguments are easily refuted."
Note the date of the article, 2002, before the US Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that states do not have the right to outlaw sodomy. Dissenting Supreme Court Justice Scalia said of that decision: "This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity ... Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision."
This 2003 Lawrence ruling was the ultimate victory for the gay "newspeak" Lively analyzes: The new concepts of homosexuality and sexual orientation, defined as innate characteristics as opposed to behavior, had won the day and paved the way for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's "legalizing" same-sex marriage.
By Scott D. Lively, Esq. (2002)
If you've never stopped to think about the danger of accepting and employing the term "sexual orientation", you'd better read this article. Lively is the co-author of The Pink Swastika (which documents the important role of pagan homosexual perversion in the Third Reich), and heads Abiding Truth Ministries.
"He who defines the terms controls the debate -- and by extension, public opinion. On this issue the terms have been defined (in many cases invented) by the talented sophists of the 'gay' movement. ...
"Among the most common terms and concepts in the 'gay rights' debate are: homosexuality, sexual orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-culturalism, inclusiveness, discrimination, homophobia and tolerance. These words and phrases are used by 'gay' sophists to frame the question of homosexuality as a civil rights issue. It is a context chosen to favor homosexuals to the extent that they cast themselves as victims and their opponents as oppressors, yet even within this context, 'gay' arguments are easily refuted."
Note the date of the article, 2002, before the US Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that states do not have the right to outlaw sodomy. Dissenting Supreme Court Justice Scalia said of that decision: "This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity ... Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision."
This 2003 Lawrence ruling was the ultimate victory for the gay "newspeak" Lively analyzes: The new concepts of homosexuality and sexual orientation, defined as innate characteristics as opposed to behavior, had won the day and paved the way for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's "legalizing" same-sex marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)