P&G flip flopping away!!!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Trinity, Oct 4, 2004.

  1. Trinity

    Trinity VIP Member

    Jun 16, 2004
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    P&G is starting to remind me of Kerry!!! They are now doing the flip-flop dance!Hey we need a flip flop emoticon!

    Dear Khafley,

    Procter & Gamble is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, a city that is in the midst of a cultural battle over homosexual rights. In 1993, by an overwhelming 62%-38% margin, the citizens of Cincinnati passed Article 12, which prohibited the granting of special rights for homosexuals.

    Eleven years later, homosexual activists want those special rights back. P&G is aggressively helping them.

    We say this for three reasons. First, P&G has a history of consistently supporting the homosexual agenda. It is disturbing to see P&G promoting a lifestyle that is unnatural and unhealthy.

    Second, P&G is working diligently to repeal Article 12, including giving $10,000 to the campaign to overturn the law and giving one of their top officials a leave of absence to head the campaign.

    Third, since their pro-homosexual agenda became public knowledge, P&G has been responding in language that makes it clear that the company supports the full breadth of the homosexual agenda.

    For example, P&G said in a company statement: "Article 12 is the only law of its kind in the United States that allows discrimination against a specific group of people, a distinction that makes the city of Cincinnati out of step with doing what's right."

    That statement is not true. For example, Houston, Texas, has a similar law.

    The truth is that Article 12 was passed in response to an earlier law that granted special rights on the basis of sexual orientation. The people of Cincinnati did not want homosexuals enshrined as a group with special privileges.

    In this regard, Cincinnati is in line with most of the cities across the nation. Out of more than 19,000 municipalities in the U.S., only 127 have laws covering the private sector (Figure 11, page 31) that grant special protections to homosexuals.

    So, are the 62% of Cincinnati voters who passed Article 12 really "out of step" as P&G says? Not according to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. When homosexual activists challenged the constitutionality of Article 12, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Cincinnati law was binding because homosexuals were not a legally defined minority deserving of the same protection as, say, racial minorities. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the 6th Circuit decision.

    In a letter sent to P&G employees concerning the company’s efforts to repeal Article 12, P&G explained: "We value differences and will not tolerate discrimination in any form, against anyone, for any reason."

    What about same-sex marriage? Isn't it discrimination to allow only heterosexual couples to marry, and not homosexual couples? Wouldn't a ban on same-sex marriage violate P&G's own policy to not "discriminate in any form … for any reason"?

    P&G is denying that they support same-sex marriage. Perhaps the question should be framed this way: Is P&G in favor of defending traditional marriage.

    There's an easy test that answers that question. On November 2, voters in the state of Ohio will be voting on the Ohio Marriage Protection Amendment, which defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman. P&G said it would not support the Ohio Marriage Protection Amendment, arguing that that is an issue that should be left to the voters.

    Huh. Then why not leave the decision of voters intact when it comes to Article 12? On one hand P&G feels it is important to openly support the repeal of Article 12, while on the other hand refusing to support the passage of the Ohio Marriage Protection Amendment?

    You learn a lot more about a company from what it does than what it says. In the case of P&G we can learn from both. They support the homosexual agenda, which includes the legalization of same-sex marriage, but not traditional marriage, which defines marriage as only between one man and one woman.

    P&G says that hundreds of thousands of voters in the following states are "out of step" and did not do what is "right". In the states of Hawaii, Alaska, Nebraska, Nevada, Missouri and Louisiana, large majorities have voted into their state constitutions a ban on homosexual marriage. In P&G's logic it was not "right" (thus it was wrong) for the voters in those states to discriminate against homosexuals by not allowing them to marry.

    By its own logic, the company believes anyone who opposes homosexual marriage is "out of step" and not doing what is "right."
  2. nakedemperor

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Aug 5, 2004
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    There was already a long, drawn-out thread over this...

Share This Page