The Ethical Boundaries of the Gay Agenda: A New Millenium of Free Speech

[Zoom-boing]

What I don't understand is . . . . we're supposed to accept the gay lifestyle regardless . . . but they do not have to accept that there are people who disagree with their lifestyle. They MUST be accepted and push this every instance they can.

I don't care who you (collective you) sleep with, stop telling me who you sleep with, stop shoving it in my face, and stop making a big deal about it. Just shut up and live your life.

You don't have to accept them. You just have to accept that they want equal rights. Just like racists don't have to accept black people, but they DO have to accept that black people have equal rights.

Perhaps they're sick of us telling them who we sleep with, and shoving it in their faces, and making a big deal out of it: romance movies and novels, tv shows, books, magazines, billboards, ads of any type, walking down the street holding hands, etc. etc. Did you ever stop to see it from their point of view, Zoom? Everywhere a homosexual looks or goes, there are men and women together. Most movies, most books, most everything. They've been oppressed for millenia. This is what happens. After so many centuries of suppression, repression, oppression with the potential of death and torture for being who they are and there is no choice about it, they are now exploding out.

Why don't you just shut up and live your life? Why does it have to be them? Because you're right and they're wrong?

You just proved my point about the minority, CM. The majority of this country is heterosexual, not homosexual. But the majority is suppose to change it's view just because the minority is 'offended'? Please.

Aside from the marriage thing, what equal rights do homosexuals not enjoy? They vote, they adopt and raise children, they work, they adopt pets from the spca.

Poor homosexuals, having to see heterosexuals walking down the street! Like I said, why don't they just shut up and live their life. Like everyone should.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Religious discrimination is the issue here. Her belief system involves the belief and dedication to the sanctity of marriage which to billions of Christians in the world is a religious sacrament. This is blatant religious discrimination the disclosure of which was solicited by a judge on the pageant panel. What's more, if she had been a lesbian and said that she believes in same sex marriages, and she got fired, would you argue the same point, on a religious standpoint or simply qualify her statement as her choice and civil right? How would you defending her?

The gay judge went on his blog and said that she was fired because she was a stupid bitch among other things, and Wayne Besen on the Hannity interview said that she was being politically incorrect in her response because she was a spokesperson for the pageant and not her own belief system. If that was a condition of qualifying, that she was to believe if not endorse same sex marriages to compete, then certainly she should have been notified. She was asked the question by a judge. Obviously it was part of his personal agenda considering her later firing. It was deliberate, and another opportunity to further the Gay Agenda. When the boyscouts were challenged regarding such policies at the onset of a scout troop leader coming out of the closet and disclosing his sexuality, the organization was asserted the constitutional right to make policies as they see fit. And rightfully so.

Also, Donald Trump backed her up completely, initially, and was later bombarded with strife from the Gay Community. If the perception here is that she is to represent the United States then how it that any different from a President representing a country who does not believe in same sex marriages? Must we now relegate the moral integrity of presidents as well? There is no diferent in terms of how public figures represent themselves.

If anything, I applaud her sense of conviction in terms of such a controversial/unpopular subject. She started with diplomacy and ended with complete honesty. Had she been a lesbian who endorsed same sex marriages, and was fired, it would have caused massive protests nationwide.

Homosexuality represents one percent of the population in this country and far less than that agree with same sex marriages. That includes the majority in California no doubt. So essentially, on a broader perspective, she is correctly representing the majority in this country and in her state.

am

Don't know if that number is accurate but homosexuals are the minority in this country. So, why all the cow-towing to them? Because that's what this country has become, a country that favors the minority and the majority be damned.

Because lots of straight people believe in equality for people other than themselves. Sad that you can't see this.

Wrong, I have no problem with equality. I have problem with a minority shoving their view and their lifestyle into the face of others and insisting that it be accepted.

 

[Newby]

Perhaps they're sick of us telling them who we sleep with, and shoving it in their faces, and making a big deal out of it: romance movies and novels, tv shows, books, magazines, billboards, ads of any type, walking down the street holding hands, etc. etc. Did you ever stop to see it from their point of view, Zoom? Everywhere a homosexual looks or goes, there are men and women together. Most movies, most books, most everything. They've been oppressed for millenia. This is what happens. After so many centuries of suppression, repression, oppression with the potential of death and torture for being who they are and there is no choice about it, they are now exploding out.

Why don't you just shut up and live your life? Why does it have to be them? Because you're right and they're wrong?

Most of the stuff you listed doesn't take place over in Iran. maybe they should live there and life would be better and they wouldn't have to endure all of that 'heterosexual/normal' stuff on display everywhere like it is here?

Except for the minor fact that they kill gays there. I mean other then that, it would be ideal

You're not very bright, are you?

 

[007]

Don't know if that number is accurate but homosexuals are the minority in this country. So, why all the cow-towing to them? Because that's what this country has become, a country that favors the minority and the majority be damned.

No, this is a country that favors equal rights and the majority be damned.

Equal rights for all is fine but I don't believe that is how it is in this country at this time. The minority is greatly favored at the expense of many other factors. Have to hire someone? Must meet your 'minority quota', even if it means hiring a less qualified person for the job. How's that make sense?

Only in the mind of a liberal.

 

[Newby]

Well, what I find intriguing about you is that you are the flip side of the coin of that which you denigrate so much, and yet you don't seem to realize it. But, you're so predicatable, I was just waiting for you to respond and you didn't let me down. Same shit, different day.

Well, I can't deny that I'm predictable. You aren't the first person to tell me, and as much as I hate to admit (being an totally extreme mountain climber and doing the Dew, and all) you're right: I'm predictable.

However, I don't know what you mean about being on the flip side of that which I denigrate so much. Care to explain?

You have no trouble impeding the rights of those you see as 'the majority' if it favors whatever minority or victim du jour that you are trying to defend. You seem to see that as somehow being 'fair' I can only assume. I think that you feel that if someone is in a majority group then they should be willing to abide getting their rights trampled on in favor of a minority because that somehow evens out the karma for you, and 'rights' past wrongs or something. If all people are truly equal, then it shouldn't matter what group they belong too, but to people who share the same political outlook as you it most definitely matters. I'm realistic enough to know that life is not fair, people are not fair, situations are not fair, that's just the way it is. No amount of government intrusion or legislation is ever going to change that. People are not born with equal intelligence, equal physical beauty, equal financial situations, etc... You're trying to create something that will never exist. You can not force people to accept things they do not think is right, any more than you would accept something that you don't feel is right. Why you think your cause is more 'just' is what I find intriguing, because it's not.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You have no trouble impeding the rights of those you see as 'the majority' if it favors whatever minority or victim du jour that you are trying to defend. You seem to see that as somehow being 'fair' I can only assume. I think that you feel that if someone is in a majority group then they should be willing to abide getting their rights trampled on in favor of a minority because that somehow evens out the karma for you, and 'rights' past wrongs or something. If all people are truly equal, then it shouldn't matter what group they belong too, but to people who share the same political outlook as you it most definitely matters. I'm realistic enough to know that life is not fair, people are not fair, situations are not fair, that's just the way it is. No amount of government intrusion or legislation is ever going to change that. People are not born with equal intelligence, equal physical beauty, equal financial situations, etc... You're trying to create something that will never exist. You can not force people to accept things they do not think is right, any more than you would accept something that you don't feel is right. Why you think your cause is more 'just' is what I find intriguing, because it's not.

Whose rights are impeded by the government recognizing same-sex marriage?

Why I think that this cause is "more just" than maintaining the government's non-sanction of same-sex marriage is because I believe in equality. Homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals in this country because heterosexuals can marry the person they love and the government recognizes that, but homosexuals can't marry the person they love and have it recognized by the government.

I understand that not everyone is born equal in certain attributes or characteristics, but I think all people should be recognized as equal because it is the civilized and humane way to behave toward eachother. Life isn't fair, people aren't fair, but lady justice is supposed to wear a blind fold to treat everyone without prejudice. To be without prejudice is what the government is supposed to be.

I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality or homosexuals. I don't hate them and I don't hate it. I understand that homosexuality is not a choice. And I know that it doesn't harm people. My uncle can't marry his life partner of 13 years and receive the same status as every other married couple outside of 6 states. That is wrong. This country is founded on human rights and equal rights. That's why I served in the Marine Corps. I swore to uphold the Constitution and although I am no longer an Active Duty Marine: once a Marine, always a Marine. I still swear to live by the principal of equal rights for all.

Why do you have a problem with homosexuality?

 

[Newby]

Why isn't a civil union acceptable then?

 

[midcan5]

Egads, another day another narrow minded anti-gay thread. Seems rights are a hard fight. Trump fired the beauty pageant winner, ask him why? As far as the slippery slope and protect the children hooey, ban marriage as it sure as hell causes more pain than gays and gay marriage.

Is anyone born heterosexual? If so, what made them heterosexual? If it learning then we can learn anything. If it is genes then could genes be different in some. So in the end you face a quandary. So do something I suggest often, switch hit and see how cute his/her butt is and if that holding hands and hugging her/him is your style. Good luck and report back soon.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Why isn't a civil union acceptable then?

Kinda flirting with the whole seperate but equal thing...

So you recognize then that gays should in fact be given the same rights and benefits afforded to heterosexual couples under marriage; however, you are now arguing semantics. While I agree marriage in our society has many religious conotations, marriage has been around longer than Christianity, Islam, or Judism and is much more a human institution than a religious one. Furthermore, in a secular democracy, religion should play at most a marginal role in shaping policy. So a religious objection to gay marriage is not valid in a country whose rights are established in a Constitution.

I would argue that in the eyes of the state every relationship between to consenting adults should be called a civil union and if you want to get married with your partner in the eyes of god then go to a fucking church of your choosing.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Why isn't a civil union acceptable then?

You mean "Separate but Equal"?

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Wrong, I have no problem with equality. I have problem with a minority shoving their view and their lifestyle into the face of others and insisting that it be accepted.

Whats wrong with a group of people trying to attain the same rights and benefits that are presently available to you? Just because they are comprised of a minority of the society doesnt make their conquest unjust. In fact I would argue that fighting for equal rights is a very just battle.

The fact that they are a "minority" is in and of itself of little consequence. James Madison warns of the "tyranny of the majority" or as he called it "the violence of the majority faction" in Federalist 10. Our Republic is not a true democratic state and has build in mechanisms to ensure that the rights of minority groups are not oppressed by an unjust majority.

 

[sidneyworld]

Colorado,

I understand that not everyone is born equal in certain attributes or characteristics, but I think all people should be recognized as equal because it is the civilized and humane way to behave toward eachother. Life isn't fair, people aren't fair, but lady justice is supposed to wear a blind fold to treat everyone without prejudice. To be without prejudice is what the government is supposed to be.

I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality or homosexuals. I don't hate them and I don't hate it. I understand that homosexuality is not a choice. And I know that it doesn't harm people. My uncle can't marry his life partner of 13 years and receive the same status as every other married couple outside of 6 states. That is wrong. This country is founded on human rights and equal rights. That's why I served in the Marine Corps. I swore to uphold the Constitution and although I am no longer an Active Duty Marine: once a Marine, always a Marine. I still swear to live by the principal of equal rights for all.

Same sex marriages is misinterpreted to be a equal rights issue. At the very core of this argument lies several factors which are perpetually asserted to be a privilege. Marriage is an institution. A collaboration between a man and a woman. Any other dynamic falls under the category of opportunity, not privilege.

In Kansas, a man actually won the right to marry his goat because the goat was his major source of income. Now mind you, not only can I not post URL's yet in here until I reach a certain post count, but you all must know stranger things have been place in the potential legislative arena.

So let's go down that road for a moment. In terms of equality and loving whomever you wish, wish I agree, and exercising the ultimate commitment of marriage: how do you feel about a brother marrying a sister? Or a father marrying a daughter? I don't agree of course, and it goes beyond the potentiality of conceiving a genetically deformed child, should that have come to fruition.

My question is where does the rights of marrage stop? What are the currently acceptable parameters of meeting its criteria?

Anne Marie

 

[midcan5]

Marriage confers on the couple rights that no other contract does. As such gays deserve those same rights under the constitution. Gay marriage is not incestuous as your examples, and since men and women are allowed to marry why has the slippery slope not slide before now? BS argument.

Is this your goat married in Iowa?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4748292.stm

 

[Cecilie1200]

Today marks a new beginning in the fight for free speech in this country. Here we have a young lady who was asked a question about Same Sex Marriages. She answered sincerely. Now she's fired. After several attempts to meet her commitment to appear for various functions, she was blackballed and advised that her only responsibility was to win and keep a smile on her face through all of it. Her attorneys advised pageant officials of the increasing evidence in their possession that indeed she was fired because of being politicaly incorrect. That along with emails and testimony from organizations who had engagements set for her appearances which were subsequently cancelled, but not by Ms. Prejean.

This is about the Massive Gay Agenda in this country which has become the New Millennium of Free Speech. But it's not win, but an incredible loss for Homosexuals in this country.

Nothing could be more obvious. This young lady now has a huge lawsuit against Pageant Officials because she kept a record of every engagement contact at the advise of her attorney. She will prove, with great backing, that she was PREVENTED from touring the country because of the Gay Community's fear that she will continue to assert her position regarding same sex marriages. I back her up completely!

These kind of threats to a person's career, job and occupation because of the Homosexual agenda will come to a halt after her attorneys are finished with them. But there's so much going on here, for a very long time which begs the question about the Ethical Boundaries of the Gay Agenda.

I think many of us agree that no human being should have their civil liberties compromised due to race, creed, color and, sexual preferences. In fact, I never really understood how the gay community became such a focus back then, given the fact that it was simply a difference of sexuality. Something I've always considered as quite personal. That is until I realized that operating from a back door, living in a closet is in itself a tremendous burden on their dignity and quality of life. Their preferred life. One that for centuries has been viewed as deviant and gross and misaligned in terms of following the moral majority of this country.

I suppose, in the scheme of things, I am still rather ignorant in attempting to understand how all of this became an issue, because it is very difficult to stereotype homosexuality. They come from all walks of life, all races, creeds, colors with one common denominator. Their sexuality. This thing that even today is still pretty much locked up behind closed doors as something very intimate and very much our own business. It's unlikely that anyone would ask about someones sexuality. Even if it came to pass that that person clearly has a same gender preference. The more sensible individual would most likely respect the "privacy" of that individual, regardless of any disclosure.

But the evolution of strife between the moral majority and homosexuals clearly indicates that something is wrong. Not with the diverse sense of sexuality, but with the open introduction of such a lifestyle where it suddenly became a political vehicle. As I recall, the first legal battle that came to play in the City was Right-of Survivorship for a New York City Apartment. This successful case was the first of it's kind. Two people living together for many years in the same apartment with only one named occupant should have the right to stay in that apartment should the occupant on record die. There are many logistics to this on both sides. New York City Landlords, because of rent control, fought the battle because they would still be locked into a rent controlled situation of that lease should there be a successful conveyance of named occupant. It was not a matter of homosexual prejudice. The landlords were just losing money in the long run, as you might expect. But because only one "single" occupant could sign a lease until the law was changed, (with the exception of students), as opposed to a married couple or an immediate family member under the same roof, it was believed that no right-of-survivorship could be asserted.

They were wrong. It was determined that to begin with, evidence of substantial contribution to the maintenance of that apartment would have to be established. Rent receipts, house insurance, household items, etc. The unnamed individual would have to clearly establish that he/she has played an equal role in their co-habitation at such a residence. In the twenty five cases that soon surfaced, almost all had established this criteria. There was no mention of homosexuality in this legislation, but certainly within all the pleadings, motions, briefs and testimony during this proceeding. The point being that there was no reason the second or third or fourth individual (having met this criteria) could not be later named on a lease who was not a spouse or immediate family member or legal dependant.

I completely agreed with this. And there is no ethical boundary under such legislation nor does it encroach on anyone's civil liberties. Not in the least.

Then came the issue of health insurance. Another successful proceeding which established the term "Life-Partner." This was also a first in history where it was argued that if someone spent a certain amount of time, under the same circumstances and criteria, as with right-of-survivorship, they should be able to provide health insurance to the other, as they are both equally dependant on each other's survival. This too was plausible, but suddenly the balance of equal rights became disproportioned because the legal definition of a "Life-partner" was successfully established to refer exclusively to gay partners. Not heterosexuals living together.

Thus the evolution of a bona fide legal union between two individuals of the same sex. On a legal standpoint, this was indeed prejudicial and outrageous and later changed to include and equally accommodate the heterosexual couple, but with a great deal of modification, as you might imagine. But the controversy took many turns once these two primary pieces of legislation came to fruition. Suddenly the gay community became empowered beyond any legal structure, and came out completely. But what came out is where the ethical boundaries comes to mind.

Naturally I would have to mention right of adoption of a baby and the subsequent concept of Same Sex Marriages. But weirder things have been passed historically in various states on the topic of marriage and who or "what" can we marry. It should have come as no surprise, perhaps. But the law can be greatly manipulated under the concept of liberty and pursuit of happiness, whatever that takes for someone to achieve in their survival, and more often that you would think the most bazaar of circumstances not only make it into court, but is argued successfully. Thus you have a man from Kentucky who is legally married to his goat because it's milk is his primary source of income. We've all heard about this type of thing. But I doubt society would take this case into account when attempting to reassert the primary core values of the moral majority. Homosexual marriages however, is something greatly significant in terms of introducing yet another legally viable lifestyle. There are problems with this, not only fundamentally or religiously.

It would stand to reason that our children will be subjected to the infinite environmental aspects of their respective lives without the benefit of any immediate parental supervision once they walk out the door. We as parents are left to the task of regulating their sensibilities and awareness and capacity to understand beyond any influence of the nature of people within this society. And we hope that until they come of age, their core values are somewhat maintained to reflect the values of their family. Not necessarily of their environment. But to a large degree this is not realistic. Schools have taken measures to accommodate, through their curriculum, a better, more positive perspective of the concept of homosexuality and same sex partners/marriages and that there is no difference in the quality of life of the child they might raise, which in itself might very well be true. But this is not the focus. Children are persuaded to think outside the box and that is it their exclusive choice to either date a boy or a girl of the same gender. And this is completely unacceptable to me. It's unacceptable because I honestly believe that only 10 or 20% of the entire gay community are gay by some biological disorder. That the balance of this those in this particular lifestyle have chosen to live this way because of environmental influences. I completely believe this. So it stands to reason that many heterosexual couples would take a issue to such direct influence by schools, to beneficially accommodate gay couples whose children attend any particular school.

What this clearly establishes, within the evolution of homosexuality, is the sudden encroachment of our liberty to somewhat successfully regulate the moral stability of our children, as might be prescribed by each family. When states begin to pass laws that directly accommodate homosexuals in schools, such as the elimination of Father's Day and Mother's Day; when troop leaders are allowed to "come-out" openly expressing their homosexuality to their organization and to their boy scouts as was the case, for instance in Boston, Illinois and Pennsylvania; when the Gay Parade at some point during it's trek towards Central Park becomes an open indiscriminate orgy, to the astonishment and disgust of parents riding the buses home with their preschoolers in plain view of these folks. And that's not just during the parade. Central Park has many areas where gay men meet to "really meet." I've seen this myself and no matter how discrete those situations are, people lose themselves at times in the heat of passion and boy there's a lot of it by the Boathouse in the West side in the park. Walk you're dog there sometimes. Just don't take the kids. Yikes.

I never thought I would ever soften on the issue of homosexuality as an established legal lifestyle. I have somewhat. Just don't tell my children is OKAY to be gay to such an extent that they might actually entertain the notion of having a sexual experience with the same sex at a very vulnerable age. This is nearly as bad as being molested, in my opinion. It is still unnatural and children, especially teenagers, who are coming into puberty can be very easily be persuaded into finding love anyway they can, most of which have absolutely no medical predisposition of genuine homosexuality.

We are not a society that want to raise homosexuals. That will never change. While we are sympathetic and hopefully respectful, there is only one formula that ensures our moral and literal self-preservation. The propagation of life. And what that means quite simply that marriage should never assume any other identity for the sake of legal equality. It's simply not necessary and in many cases, not even beneficial. We all have the right to love whomever. I honestly believe that. But we do not have the right to manipulate the children in this society into believing that there's anything natural about homosexuality. Love is natural. Love is a very powerful thing. And we have the right to be happy. All of us. But we also have a responsibility in making sure, under normal circumstances that our children are not influenced into a lifestyle for the sole purpose of pacifying a community still trying to make some point in their existence when they have already received a great deal of recognition. And in many ways, rightfully so, as I've demonstrated above.

Above all, we as citizens in this country have a right to express our opinion, as Ms. USA did, and in a very diplomatic fashion. She lost her job because of it. This is a complete disgrace and the Homosexual Agenda and it's staunch supporters will soon discover that this exposure of their perception of bigotry, only exposes them to a universal prejudice of anything by straight.

Anne Marie

You have free speech. Just as your employer has the right to fire your ass if they don't like that speech. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you the right to say whatever you want with no consequences, it guarantees the right of no government sponsored consequences.

Prejean has her beliefs, and her boss doesn't like them. She needs to take personal responsibility for her own actions.

As a matter of fact, your employer does NOT have the right to fire you for your political beliefs, nor does he have the right to fire you for expressing them politely when he asks you about them.

Ask yourself this: would you be so blase about "your employer has the right to fire your ass" if YOUR employer was a conservative who fired you for espousing liberal beliefs? Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[9 Volt]

Today marks a new beginning in the fight for free speech in this country. Here we have a young lady who was asked a question about Same Sex Marriages. She answered sincerely. Now she's fired. After several attempts to meet her commitment to appear for various functions, she was blackballed and advised that her only responsibility was to win and keep a smile on her face through all of it. Her attorneys advised pageant officials of the increasing evidence in their possession that indeed she was fired because of being politicaly incorrect. That along with emails and testimony from organizations who had engagements set for her appearances which were subsequently cancelled, but not by Ms. Prejean.

This is about the Massive Gay Agenda in this country which has become the New Millennium of Free Speech. But it's not win, but an incredible loss for Homosexuals in this country.

Nothing could be more obvious. This young lady now has a huge lawsuit against Pageant Officials because she kept a record of every engagement contact at the advise of her attorney. She will prove, with great backing, that she was PREVENTED from touring the country because of the Gay Community's fear that she will continue to assert her position regarding same sex marriages. I back her up completely!

These kind of threats to a person's career, job and occupation because of the Homosexual agenda will come to a halt after her attorneys are finished with them. But there's so much going on here, for a very long time which begs the question about the Ethical Boundaries of the Gay Agenda.

I think many of us agree that no human being should have their civil liberties compromised due to race, creed, color and, sexual preferences. In fact, I never really understood how the gay community became such a focus back then, given the fact that it was simply a difference of sexuality. Something I've always considered as quite personal. That is until I realized that operating from a back door, living in a closet is in itself a tremendous burden on their dignity and quality of life. Their preferred life. One that for centuries has been viewed as deviant and gross and misaligned in terms of following the moral majority of this country.

I suppose, in the scheme of things, I am still rather ignorant in attempting to understand how all of this became an issue, because it is very difficult to stereotype homosexuality. They come from all walks of life, all races, creeds, colors with one common denominator. Their sexuality. This thing that even today is still pretty much locked up behind closed doors as something very intimate and very much our own business. It's unlikely that anyone would ask about someones sexuality. Even if it came to pass that that person clearly has a same gender preference. The more sensible individual would most likely respect the "privacy" of that individual, regardless of any disclosure.

But the evolution of strife between the moral majority and homosexuals clearly indicates that something is wrong. Not with the diverse sense of sexuality, but with the open introduction of such a lifestyle where it suddenly became a political vehicle. As I recall, the first legal battle that came to play in the City was Right-of Survivorship for a New York City Apartment. This successful case was the first of it's kind. Two people living together for many years in the same apartment with only one named occupant should have the right to stay in that apartment should the occupant on record die. There are many logistics to this on both sides. New York City Landlords, because of rent control, fought the battle because they would still be locked into a rent controlled situation of that lease should there be a successful conveyance of named occupant. It was not a matter of homosexual prejudice. The landlords were just losing money in the long run, as you might expect. But because only one "single" occupant could sign a lease until the law was changed, (with the exception of students), as opposed to a married couple or an immediate family member under the same roof, it was believed that no right-of-survivorship could be asserted.

They were wrong. It was determined that to begin with, evidence of substantial contribution to the maintenance of that apartment would have to be established. Rent receipts, house insurance, household items, etc. The unnamed individual would have to clearly establish that he/she has played an equal role in their co-habitation at such a residence. In the twenty five cases that soon surfaced, almost all had established this criteria. There was no mention of homosexuality in this legislation, but certainly within all the pleadings, motions, briefs and testimony during this proceeding. The point being that there was no reason the second or third or fourth individual (having met this criteria) could not be later named on a lease who was not a spouse or immediate family member or legal dependant.

I completely agreed with this. And there is no ethical boundary under such legislation nor does it encroach on anyone's civil liberties. Not in the least.

Then came the issue of health insurance. Another successful proceeding which established the term "Life-Partner." This was also a first in history where it was argued that if someone spent a certain amount of time, under the same circumstances and criteria, as with right-of-survivorship, they should be able to provide health insurance to the other, as they are both equally dependant on each other's survival. This too was plausible, but suddenly the balance of equal rights became disproportioned because the legal definition of a "Life-partner" was successfully established to refer exclusively to gay partners. Not heterosexuals living together.

Thus the evolution of a bona fide legal union between two individuals of the same sex. On a legal standpoint, this was indeed prejudicial and outrageous and later changed to include and equally accommodate the heterosexual couple, but with a great deal of modification, as you might imagine. But the controversy took many turns once these two primary pieces of legislation came to fruition. Suddenly the gay community became empowered beyond any legal structure, and came out completely. But what came out is where the ethical boundaries comes to mind.

Naturally I would have to mention right of adoption of a baby and the subsequent concept of Same Sex Marriages. But weirder things have been passed historically in various states on the topic of marriage and who or "what" can we marry. It should have come as no surprise, perhaps. But the law can be greatly manipulated under the concept of liberty and pursuit of happiness, whatever that takes for someone to achieve in their survival, and more often that you would think the most bazaar of circumstances not only make it into court, but is argued successfully. Thus you have a man from Kentucky who is legally married to his goat because it's milk is his primary source of income. We've all heard about this type of thing. But I doubt society would take this case into account when attempting to reassert the primary core values of the moral majority. Homosexual marriages however, is something greatly significant in terms of introducing yet another legally viable lifestyle. There are problems with this, not only fundamentally or religiously.

It would stand to reason that our children will be subjected to the infinite environmental aspects of their respective lives without the benefit of any immediate parental supervision once they walk out the door. We as parents are left to the task of regulating their sensibilities and awareness and capacity to understand beyond any influence of the nature of people within this society. And we hope that until they come of age, their core values are somewhat maintained to reflect the values of their family. Not necessarily of their environment. But to a large degree this is not realistic. Schools have taken measures to accommodate, through their curriculum, a better, more positive perspective of the concept of homosexuality and same sex partners/marriages and that there is no difference in the quality of life of the child they might raise, which in itself might very well be true. But this is not the focus. Children are persuaded to think outside the box and that is it their exclusive choice to either date a boy or a girl of the same gender. And this is completely unacceptable to me. It's unacceptable because I honestly believe that only 10 or 20% of the entire gay community are gay by some biological disorder. That the balance of this those in this particular lifestyle have chosen to live this way because of environmental influences. I completely believe this. So it stands to reason that many heterosexual couples would take a issue to such direct influence by schools, to beneficially accommodate gay couples whose children attend any particular school.

What this clearly establishes, within the evolution of homosexuality, is the sudden encroachment of our liberty to somewhat successfully regulate the moral stability of our children, as might be prescribed by each family. When states begin to pass laws that directly accommodate homosexuals in schools, such as the elimination of Father's Day and Mother's Day; when troop leaders are allowed to "come-out" openly expressing their homosexuality to their organization and to their boy scouts as was the case, for instance in Boston, Illinois and Pennsylvania; when the Gay Parade at some point during it's trek towards Central Park becomes an open indiscriminate orgy, to the astonishment and disgust of parents riding the buses home with their preschoolers in plain view of these folks. And that's not just during the parade. Central Park has many areas where gay men meet to "really meet." I've seen this myself and no matter how discrete those situations are, people lose themselves at times in the heat of passion and boy there's a lot of it by the Boathouse in the West side in the park. Walk you're dog there sometimes. Just don't take the kids. Yikes.

I never thought I would ever soften on the issue of homosexuality as an established legal lifestyle. I have somewhat. Just don't tell my children is OKAY to be gay to such an extent that they might actually entertain the notion of having a sexual experience with the same sex at a very vulnerable age. This is nearly as bad as being molested, in my opinion. It is still unnatural and children, especially teenagers, who are coming into puberty can be very easily be persuaded into finding love anyway they can, most of which have absolutely no medical predisposition of genuine homosexuality.

We are not a society that want to raise homosexuals. That will never change. While we are sympathetic and hopefully respectful, there is only one formula that ensures our moral and literal self-preservation. The propagation of life. And what that means quite simply that marriage should never assume any other identity for the sake of legal equality. It's simply not necessary and in many cases, not even beneficial. We all have the right to love whomever. I honestly believe that. But we do not have the right to manipulate the children in this society into believing that there's anything natural about homosexuality. Love is natural. Love is a very powerful thing. And we have the right to be happy. All of us. But we also have a responsibility in making sure, under normal circumstances that our children are not influenced into a lifestyle for the sole purpose of pacifying a community still trying to make some point in their existence when they have already received a great deal of recognition. And in many ways, rightfully so, as I've demonstrated above.

Above all, we as citizens in this country have a right to express our opinion, as Ms. USA did, and in a very diplomatic fashion. She lost her job because of it. This is a complete disgrace and the Homosexual Agenda and it's staunch supporters will soon discover that this exposure of their perception of bigotry, only exposes them to a universal prejudice of anything by straight.

Anne Marie

You have free speech. Just as your employer has the right to fire your ass if they don't like that speech. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you the right to say whatever you want with no consequences, it guarantees the right of no government sponsored consequences.

Prejean has her beliefs, and her boss doesn't like them. She needs to take personal responsibility for her own actions.

As a matter of fact, your employer does NOT have the right to fire you for your political beliefs, nor does he have the right to fire you for expressing them politely when he asks you about them.

Ask yourself this: would you be so blase about "your employer has the right to fire your ass" if YOUR employer was a conservative who fired you for espousing liberal beliefs? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Depends on the state. At-will employment means that your employer can terminate you for any reason at any time.

 

[sidneyworld]

Equal rights is a very broad based and "equally" ambiguous philosophy in this country. Everything from favoritism by a teacher of a particular student, to equal opportunity employment. In fact, equal rights has the potential of becoming the most obnoxiously recognized if not abused exercise of our liberties as citizens in this country, as it has since become the great pacifier in everyones mouth.

But there's more at stake here. How much of our personal views predicated on core value should be compromised in setting the new standard of behavior in the name of political correctness, which brings it all back to Ms. U.S.A?

Should political correctness be ultimately legislated, mandated and endorced. Should we arrested for hurting someone's feelings in the simple expression of our personal ideologies? Hmmmm.

As I've notice for past decades, we have become a society who pacifies literally every aspect of an individual's "feelings." As if to suggest that as we live and breath, we must now reconsider our personal views, for the sake of the collective view, so as not to offend anyone. We are becoming a "stepford" society. The problem is, we are losing our substance as individuals and as a country, by a slow process of elimination. We are essentially losing our civil rights, and nothing is being offered as an alternative. We just lose. We all lose. And civil rights is being defined as a singularity for special interest groups. Not a universal collaboration of laws and balance which every society agrees upon as means to live harmonously.

Civil rights as it was initially defined was something a long time coming. And rightfully so. Blacks were severely discriminated against, in the worst way imaginable. We all know that. Women have been historically oppressed and undermined in their role within family life, and as individuals, to such an extent as if to suggest that they were indeed property, or perhaps even a commodity. This ideology of perpetual subordination.
Homosexuals as well have had to fight for their civil rights. Civil as individual human beings.

The inception of all these causes were viable and necessary .... and inevitable. But what became of this is not such a glorious story of heroics. Not in the least.

I grew up with Archie Bunker and Edith and Michael and Gloria. Whatta shock? lol. But seriously, that program dealt with a lot of issues more paramount today then at the time. Michael naturally being the college agnostic idealist, Archie had more than his share of liberalism to deal with all wrapped up in a son-in-law. The Meathead.

While on the surface, his blatant ignorance was more the focus on face value, the true character of Archie Bunker represents the ongoing desire to preserve family values and morals and respect, as he personally experienced in his youth, against a growing society plagued with crime and political strife. Pregnant teenagers, disintegrating neighborhoods, Welfare, abortion, child abuse, divorce, homosexuality and, yes of course, racism. Much of which he himself might have inadvertently provoked. "Them damn Liberals!" But he told it the way he saw it. There was never any pretense to his opinion, or a hidden agenda of perhaps a less than dignified means. Appearances notwithstanding. I agree with at least his sense of ultimate frustration.

I, myself, have much in common with Archie. I have indeed crossed the politically correct threshold in many of my posts on issues which have clearly progressed far beyond anyone's control, especially with matters concerning homosexuality, equal rights/racism and abortion. But my views stem largely from experience and the gut reaction to what I see.

Because what I see now is the unfortunate evolution of these same issues addressed back then, in this sitcom. Homosexuals are allowed to become married and raise children who will ultimately have a natural surrogate parent they might never know by design. Pedophiles are not remanded to state custody, but simply identified, publicly, in neighborhoods fully within their right to legally reside in; Welfare has converted our children into a commodity; Abortion has successfully paved the way to embryotic stem cell research; which simply adds insult to injury in decreasing the vaule of human life by defining a fetus as a woman's property, a piece of flesh. And of course that in itself remains the decision of the woman should she not need the fuss of raising a child. Another woman has the equal right of defining her pregnancy as being the host of a miracle. Of carrying the makings of a human being. Her sole responsibility as another human being. Amazing how frivolous the Constitution's passed legislation clearly legalized the murder of unborn children through this philosophy. The child has no rights. None at all.

We are dealing with excessive deteriorating neighborhoods which are now infested with gangs, the offspring of which has taken the form a subculture that our children embrace through music and the media. And religion is now taboo. Unless, of course, it involves Islam. "Ah GEEEZ." Can you just here Archie now!

I share in Archie's obvious frustration. And it's still my right today, to voice my opinions in light of it. And I will. By what ever means and determination I have that will bring to focus the root cause of these problems. Not to instead theorize and inevitably pacify their offspring ideologies and subsequent ramifications, which have suffocated the very notion of sound sensibility in family ideals, the cohesive contagious nature of patriotism, the undying love and respect for God and the life He gave us.

Given all of this, thus far, I am most adamant about one issue.

I am pro-life. I am this, to such an extent, that a fly on the wall has a better than 90% chance of surviving in my house, albeit, without a perceived threat of some unlikely infestation. I can say this with a great deal of confidence because nothing in my house carries a scent that would attract them. I suppose it’s somewhat of an inadvertent measure of preventative maintenance that reflects a daily routine, as does with most of us. So I have every expectation that the 20 or 30 days this fly will survive in my home will be realized in my graces.

I am also a woman. This automatically qualifies a natural predisposition.

In matters of Constitutional designation, the Supreme Court has the obligation to rule on matters that could not be determined, through the natural delegation of authority issued to each state, by due process in court.

It could be reasoned, though, that on issues of moral constitution, we are, at times, better left to our own devices which are borne of “root” influences, as with family. The moral majority having instilled life sustaining values which regulate our behavior for the rest of our lives. And these values become, essentially, the general moral standard of any country. This should be enough. It isn’t. Not anymore. And the changes are not progressive.

In exercising our freedom to choose whatever course better fits our lifestyle, there’s one issue in particular where that freedom goes well beyond an individual’s personal discretion. The creation and preservation of life. It had been suggested many times that it’s far easier for a healthy woman to conceive a child then to obtain a drivers license. The state issues licenses not only as a form of identification, but as a legal confirmation of that person’s ability to drive a car well within the safety protocols that would otherwise inevitably pose a life threatening situation on the road. This is a responsible law enacted by the state for the sake of its citizens. Every citizen.

When the Supreme Court made it’s general determination of pro-abortion, not only did it legalize the capacity by which a woman can deal with her unwanted pregnancy, but it legally corrupted the general moral standard of this county, by furthering, perhaps even encouraging the irresponsible and reckless selfishness of unprotected sexual intercourse when pregnancy is not intended. They opened Pandora’s box. Literally.

It should have remained an issue exclusive to extreme cases of rape or incest, whereby the quality of the life of the child would otherwise be instantly compromised due to the nature of its conception. And most certainly should never have been legislated one way or another. On matters concerning procreation it is far more efficient to leave these viable personal issues to the moral majority or the blind faith even of an individual’s conscious because legislation cannot interfer with such things as a human right of procreation. This is the real issue, the real problem because the natural trend of human beings, is to suddenly want what a higher court has taken away, or to grab what it’s suddenly granted through a decision. In this case, setting, though inadvertently, a destructive precedent..

Our liberties should not have to be realized in a court of law. We, as both individuals and a country should not have to rely on a higher elected authority to reaffirm what should have been instilled in our values to begin with. Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness and above all LIFE………….

Except that now we are faced with having to be politically correct with concepts that contradict our way of life, which gages our quality of life. And that is as much of an imposition on those who embrace traditional marriage, as those who have this notion that literally everyone has the right to marry.

Do they? Any combination, any dynamic, any age?

Anne Marie

Anne Marie

 

[Big Black Dog]

sydneyworld - I think that what goes on in a person's bedroom is entirely their own affair. That's where homoseexual activity should end. I am greatly offended by the efforts to bring this agenda into our public schools, openly on tv or in the movies, and promoted by events such as gay pride parades, etc. The shout-down tactics are just that - a tactic to denounce normal behavior and promote homosexual activity as "normal". It's politically correct to accept homosexual behavior and that lifestyle. Political correctness in itself is just pure crap in itself. When and where is all of this going to end? You don't hear so much from groups such as Act Out any more because that tactic was a turnoff to a lot of people. If a true poll was taken across the nation I think you would find that there are less than 10% of the population involved in this lifestyle and not the larger amount touted by the homosexuals. Personally, I'm tired of hearing about it.

 

[sidneyworld]

9Volt,

Depends on the state. At-will employment means that your employer can terminate you for any reason at any time.

Actually at-will employment has strick guidelines which if not followed will indeed result in civil suits for discrimination. I've worked on many cases involving this issues. Wrongful dismissal is usually the defense predicated on Age, Religious Beliefs, even, believe it or not, substance abuse. While the company does not have to pay the employee, it has been successfully challenged that this employee as a "disease" and because he was not tested or tested negatively of any substance abuse prior to his hiring, or before his trial employment period, they can sued to not be fired before the company pays for treatment or whatever is prescribed by their insurance company.

At will-employment does not cover these issues. Many folks just leave, as it was years ago, without filing a lawsuit, in this case equal rights did well to become so universally discussed in open forums such as the media. We've won many cases involving these issues. Some might have been by a thread, others were blatant prejudice and discrimination.

Anne Marie

 

[9 Volt]

9Volt,

Depends on the state. At-will employment means that your employer can terminate you for any reason at any time.

Actually at-will employment has strick guidelines which if not followed will indeed result in civil suits for discrimination. I've worked on many cases involving this issues. Wrongful dismissal is usually the defense predicated on Age, Religious Beliefs, even, believe it or not, substance abuse. While the company does not have to pay the employee, it has been successfully challenged that this employee as a "disease" and because he was not tested or tested negatively of any substance abuse prior to his hiring, or before his trial employment period, they can sued to not be fired before the company pays for treatment or whatever is prescribed by their insurance company.

At will-employment does not cover these issues. Many folks just leave, as it was years ago, without filing a lawsuit, in this case equal rights did well to become so universally discussed in open forums such as the media. We've won many cases involving these issues. Some might have been by a thread, others were blatant prejudice and discrimination.

Anne Marie

Out of the nearly 100 folks I've seen terminated at-will, only one won a racial discrimination suit, and her award was deserved.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Religious discrimination is the issue here. Her belief system involves the belief and dedication to the sanctity of marriage which to billions of Christians in the world is a religious sacrament. This is blatant religious discrimination the disclosure of which was solicited by a judge on the pageant panel. What's more, if she had been a lesbian and said that she believes in same sex marriages, and she got fired, would you argue the same point, on a religious standpoint or simply qualify her statement as her choice and civil right? How would you defending her?

You're right; this works both ways, WHEN it comes to the Freedom of Speech. However, if you are speaking of Freedom of Religion and not Freedom of Speech, that also works both ways and not in the way in which you'd like. My religious beliefs are that anyone can marry anyone and to prevent that happening goes against my religious beliefs. So, now whose religion gets the law? Yours?

The one with the most votes, sweetie pie. You want to impose your beliefs on everyone else (something that you scream about when anyone else does it, mind you)? Then stop trying to do an end run around the political process and get your ass out and start convincing people to agree with you.

That we stop people from marrying eachother just because it doesn't fall in with your religious beliefs (although it doesn't directly affect you), or mine: let's not have laws stopping people from marrying eachother at all?

Nobody's preventing anyone from doing shit. Stop with the smokescreen and obfuscation. All that's being refused is official endorsement of what they're doing, not the ability to do it. Are you telling me your relationship doesn't exist if the government doesn't sanction it?

If she were a lesbian, and said she supported same-sex marriages and was kicked off the pageant, I would've though: "Duh! Whattaya expect from beauty pageant judges?" I have been surprised that the judges didn't fit my preconceived notion.

The gay judge went on his blog and said that she was fired because she was a stupid bitch among other things,

Well, that's a matter of opinion. I also think she's an idiot and a stuck in the mud traditionalist in denial of the most fundamental truth of the Universe: change. And since he was a judge, his opinion really counts in this matter.

Yeah, except I don't recall "agreeing with the idiot, stick-in-the-mud homosexual's agenda" as part of the pageant criteria, so it's inappropriate for him to judge her on it.

It wasn't to further the Gay Agenda.

Yeah, and the manure the farmers spread in the fields isn't to fertilize the crops.

This is how people who regard homosexuality as dangerous or subversive or unhealthy for society perceive it.

Pretty damned perceptive bunch, then, aren't they?

He just didn't like her and being a judge, he had the right to "fire" her ass. Even if it is because she opposes gay marriage.

I realize that, being a liberal, you're probably wholly unfamiliar with the concept of "impartial judging". I mean, look at the crap you people pull with the judiciary. Nevertheless, he does NOT have the right to impose his personal likes and dislikes in place of the official, established pageant criteria. If he can't remain impartial and judge the contestants solely on those criteria, then an honorable person is obligated to remove himself as a judge. I think we can see whether or not this turd is honorable.

Not every homosexual is furthering the mythical "gay agenda".

No, just the assholes shoehorning their bullshit into everything they get near.

All they want is acceptance, and is that so wrong?

It is when they try to get it by bludgeoning their opponents into silence.

And by the way, I thought the official rap was that they didn't give a damn about acceptance from the rest of us, and our opinions didn't matter. Could you at least ATTEMPT some consistency, for God's sake?

Apples and oranges. She is a beauty pageant contestant, not a world leader.

So if it's not important to you, it's not important?

If anything, I applaud her sense of conviction in terms of such a controversial/unpopular subject. She started with diplomacy and ended with complete honesty. Had she been a lesbian who endorsed same sex marriages, and was fired, it would have caused massive protests nationwide.

That is because homosexuals are oppressed in this country unlike the Moral Majority. I'm not saying that makes it right, I'm just explaining why. I'm not saying that its wrong either.

You're not saying much of anything worth hearing. Homosexuals are not "oppressed", so stop your victim parade.

Homosexuality represents one percent of the population in this country and far less than that agree with same sex marriages. That includes the majority in California no doubt. So essentially, on a broader perspective, she is correctly representing the majority in this country and in her state.

Those are assumptions and inaccurate ones at that.

You have an obvious bias against homosexuality as much as you attempted to be open to it. I applaud your attempt and admire that you somewhat succeeded. However, I would guess that you probably haven't been exposed to many homosexuals.

Speaking of inaccurate assumptions. I have the same opinions of homosexual "marriage" that sidney does, and I belong to the BDSM community, where at least a third of the people I know are homosexual. If "lack of exposure" doesn't work as an explanation, what else have you got?

There are many more homosexuals percentage-wise than you assume above. 10% is the current consensus. 30% for bi-sexuality.

No, dumbass, it's not. It's also not a "consensus". What is it with you leftists and your crazy notion that facts are determined by a vote?

Ten percent is the approximate percentage of lefthanded people in the population at any given moment. It was appropriated by Alfred Kinsey in his since-debunked "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male", and has simply been parroted ever since. The 2000 Census tells us that homosexual couples make up less than 1% of American households, which I assume is where sidney got his/her numbers. No reputable study has gotten numbers over 5%, and most have been significantly lower. It would probably be impossible to tell for sure, since not everyone defines homosexuality the same way.

I don't know just how accurate those figures are (nobody does), but that's the current consensus among mental health, social work professionals, and cultural anthropologists.

Bullshit.

I think that if you base your opinion about how many people in this country support or oppose same-sex marriages solely on California's voting records, you could support your opinion.

If they don't care enough to vote, why should we care what they think?

I don't think it reflects what most people (including those who didn't vote) think. That also doesn't make it right. Its called mob rule. The Founding Fathers set up the Constitution and the system of government to try to avoid that happening, and its mostly worked unless you consider Suffrage, Civil Rights, etc. where the voting majority didn't want to extend equal rights to the disenfranchised or the oppressed.

Oh, horseshit. There we go, wrapping ourselves in some fallacious, cherrypicked interpretation of the Founding Fathers. I can assure you that the Founding Fathers never intended for our laws and society to be shaped by a bunch of unelected judges and then imposed fait accompli on an unwilling populace, so you can stop humming "The Star Spangled Banner" out of your asshole at us, okay?

The Founding Fathers set it up so that each state could decide on the method they wanted to use to set the laws of that state, and California decided it wanted the people of the state to have initiative power, so you're not only on the wrong side of the actual law AND public opinion, you're also on the wrong side of the Founding Fathers you only care about when you think you can twist them to suit your agenda.

And by the way, ass clown, if the voting majority didn't want to extend suffrage and civil rights to the disenfranchised, would you mind telling me how it was that both things got voted into existence? Because sure as shit, neither one of them got birthed into law by your preferred method of judicial legislating from the bench.

Homosexuality isn't generally a chosen life-style. If you aren't gay, or bi-sexual, then you're straight and if you're straight and in a sexual relationship with someone of the same-sex, you aren't happy. Period. Does that mean that people never do that? No. But the vast majority of homosexuals are gay, not straight people choosing to be in a homosexual relationship. If your children are straight, then they are straight and there is a .001% chance they'll engage in a homosexual relationship. What if your children are gay, so what? It happens and there isn't anything wrong with it because it doesn't hurt anybody.

If they teach that homosexuality is ok in school, its like teaching that black people were equal in school 50 years ago. I don't think anyone is telling your children that they SHOULD be homosexuals..

Since they're my children and not yours, you'll excuse me if I don't give a tin shit WHAT you think about it. For someone who keeps screeching like a woman about imposing beliefs on other people's lives, you're sure in a rush to do it yourself.

Maybe not in all, but in this matter you are conservative. You resist change and social progress. It doesn't fit in with your world view, but its inevitable. Best broaden your perspective and get with the times, cause "Times, they are a changin'."

Maybe sidney resists change because it doesn't automatically equal progress. And you'll forgive us all if the whole "The rest of us lemmings are going over that cliff, so you might as well just get to jumping yourself" theory doesn't inspire us with enthusiasm.