After the twisted1ogics earlier post on the abuse San Diego Firefighters experienced at the Gay Pride
orgy parade in San Diego, this series of news articles highlights an event with related significance. The first presidential debate with the specific intent of highlighting the homosexual in current American society. Hosted by a pro-homosexual organization and a cable TV channel catering to homosexuals, Democrat Presidential hopefuls met in Hollywood last night.
Here’s the rundown on where most of the Democrat Presidential candidates stand on the issue of homosexuals and alternative lifestyles:
All six candidates present voiced their support for civil unions with the same rights as marriage. This puts the lie to the claims of opportunists and incrementalists who keep saying that civil unions are not going to be “marriage by a different name”.
Cynical Liar Moment: Clinton said that her husband signing the Defense Of Marriage Amendment (DOMA) helped deflect Republican criticism of Democrats during the 2004 elections: “DOMA provided great protection against the Republican strategy to cynically use marriage as a political tool.” So she is not interested in being honest and telling us what she really means to do. She will do whatever necessary to accomplish her ends. How do we know she’s telling the truth ever, if she will publicly say that she lies to suit her own ends?
Dogma Moment: Bill Richardson, asked if homosexuality is a choice or biological, answers that it is a choice, uncomfortably. The questioner says “I don’t think you understand the question” and proceeds to reiterate the same question. This isn’t up for decision, she’s saying, any answer but the one I want to hear is unacceptable. First, this is a forum where your whole purpose is to see WHAT they believe. And if they believe what you’d like them to believe, that is good for you, and if they don’t believe what you want them to believe, it is honest of them, but you still have to accept the answer as being a valid answer. Even wrong answers are valid, they’re just wrong. This shows the close-mindedness and bigotry so often pointed out in the pro-marriage side is rampant in the homosexual side.
All the Democrat candidates voiced their support for homosexual-friendly civil unions with all the rights and privileges of traditional marriage, two voiced support for actually calling homosexual unions “marriage”. Compare this to the arguments of incrementalists and opportunists claiming they are not seeking “marriage by a different name”. This is what we face. This is the truth right now. Any Democrat nominee for President will support nation-wide civil unions allowing homosexual couples to marry in America. Or at least we cannot trust them not to support them. Liars can only really be trusted to lie.
The tacit acceptance of the claims of homosexuals that by not giving their choice of couple-hood the same benefits and responsibilities as heterosexual married couples we are somehow denying their basic rights is at once both the most insidious and untruthful argument in their arsenal. First, a homosexual has exactly the same rights of any other human and American. They are allowed freedom and liberty in what they believe and what they say. They are granted protection under the law and under the law-keepers. They are allowed to live however and with whomever they please. A heterosexual is not allowed to be a pedophile any more than a homosexual is (NAMBLA would love to change this). Within the law of nature and nature’s God, all humans are equally blessed and equally responsible. What causes this idea that by denying a romantically/sexually involved homosexual couple the legal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples you are denying their basic rights is an identity born from sexuality. Rights are based on whether one is human or not, and may be modified of reduced morally if you have violated another’s rights. Rights are not based on sexuality or gender or color or any other subdivision of humanity.
In fact, most cultural jealousies these days are born from a a desire to have different rights than another group of humans, and some of the greatest most respected crusaders through history were those who sought to and succeeded in causing the sea change rectifying disparities in the rights of various groups of humans.
There is no just or moral basis for any difference in rights based on any criteria besides our humanity.
News articles on the forum: