sidneyworld
Senior Member
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
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
