A home school legal advocate is disturbed by the recent actions of a social worker in Florida.
According to Kris Klicka of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), a social worker in Miami, Florida, overstepped the boundary of law when she demanded to interview a home schooler's children. He says the social worker showed up at the family's home when the father was at work -- and out of fear and intimidation, the mother let the social worker into the home to interview her children, even though the worker neither had a warrant nor would disclose why she was there. The social worker -- according to HSLDA -- then partially stripped the children and searched them, but found nothing. During the ordeal, the mother called Klicka for legal advice. Klicka was able to talk with the social worker and inform her that she was violating federal law. "[E]very family needs to realize that the Constitution of the United States has a Fourth Amendment that states that no one from the government can enter a home unless they have a warrant [that has been] signed by a judge," Klicka explains. "And the judge cannot sign it unless there is probable cause -- and most of the time these social workers do not have probable cause or credible evidence." According to HSLDA, the allegations the social worker was supposedly following up on were based on an anonymous tip concerning a situation from eight months earlier. After the social worker could not find any evidence to support those allegations, she suggested that the entire family get psychological evaluations -- which the family declined. Klicka says the family is considering a civil rights lawsuit alleging the social worker broke the law by (1) entering the home and interviewing the children through intimidation; (2) not letting the family know the allegations at the initial visit; and (3) interviewing children whom the allegations did not concern.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
PEPSI SUPPORTS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA
Pepsi has given Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) a half-million dollars to help push the homosexual agenda in the workplace. PFLAG is a political advocacy group that promotes radical homosexual political causes like same-sex marriage, hate-crime laws, and gay adoption.
Pepsi has a long tradition of financial support for homosexual groups. According to Jacqueline Millan, director of PepsiCo Corporate Contributions, "We are delighted to continue our partnership with PFLAG...(in) promoting the necessary message of inclusion to untapped groups...and that is a crucial step toward building a healthy working environment."
Despite the fact that 30 states have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, Pepsi continues to support the efforts by same-sex groups pushing for homosexual marriage.
AFA wrote Pepsi on October 14 and again on October 29 asking the company to remain neutral in the culture war. Pepsi didn't care enough to respond to the AFA letters. Pepsi's lack of response indicates the company plans to continue support for the homosexual agenda.
Effective Immediately, I will not buy ANY Pepsi Product!!!
Pepsi has a long tradition of financial support for homosexual groups. According to Jacqueline Millan, director of PepsiCo Corporate Contributions, "We are delighted to continue our partnership with PFLAG...(in) promoting the necessary message of inclusion to untapped groups...and that is a crucial step toward building a healthy working environment."
Despite the fact that 30 states have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, Pepsi continues to support the efforts by same-sex groups pushing for homosexual marriage.
AFA wrote Pepsi on October 14 and again on October 29 asking the company to remain neutral in the culture war. Pepsi didn't care enough to respond to the AFA letters. Pepsi's lack of response indicates the company plans to continue support for the homosexual agenda.
Effective Immediately, I will not buy ANY Pepsi Product!!!
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Homosexuals Attack Church
Homosexual activists recently attacked a Michigan church during its worship service.
The attack occurred at Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan, by a group of self-described homosexual anarchists called "Bash Back!" Susan Fani of the Catholic League describes what happened. "Outside they were chanting 'Jesus was a homo' on a megaphone. They were beating on buckets, presumably to drown out what the pastor was saying inside the church, and carrying an upside-down pink cross," she explains. "They set off the fire alarm. They unfurled this big banner because they apparently were hiding in an unused part of the church, like the balcony area." A Catholic League article also notes the "gay fascists" stormed the pulpit and shouted obscenities at church members. The protesters carried a banner that read, "It's okay to be gay! Bash Back!" Fani contends the group's activities were illegal. "The police did show up and, as far as we can tell, no one was arrested, which we also don't understand because apparently most of the 30 or so people in this group fled before the police got there, but some were still there," she adds. President of the Catholic League Bill Donahue laments the refusal of the biased, mainstream media to report on what he calls one of the most disturbing events this year. "If an organized group of gay bashers stormed a gay church, there is not a single sentient person in the United States who wouldn't know about it."
The league is contacting Mike Cox, Michigan's attorney general, for an investigation.
The attack occurred at Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan, by a group of self-described homosexual anarchists called "Bash Back!" Susan Fani of the Catholic League describes what happened. "Outside they were chanting 'Jesus was a homo' on a megaphone. They were beating on buckets, presumably to drown out what the pastor was saying inside the church, and carrying an upside-down pink cross," she explains. "They set off the fire alarm. They unfurled this big banner because they apparently were hiding in an unused part of the church, like the balcony area." A Catholic League article also notes the "gay fascists" stormed the pulpit and shouted obscenities at church members. The protesters carried a banner that read, "It's okay to be gay! Bash Back!" Fani contends the group's activities were illegal. "The police did show up and, as far as we can tell, no one was arrested, which we also don't understand because apparently most of the 30 or so people in this group fled before the police got there, but some were still there," she adds. President of the Catholic League Bill Donahue laments the refusal of the biased, mainstream media to report on what he calls one of the most disturbing events this year. "If an organized group of gay bashers stormed a gay church, there is not a single sentient person in the United States who wouldn't know about it."
The league is contacting Mike Cox, Michigan's attorney general, for an investigation.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The VOICE of PRO LIFE
This is the STORY of Gianna Jessen – The survivor of a Botched Saline Abortion
VERY POWERFUL
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8B1nKGIAeg
GOD IS AMAZING!
VERY POWERFUL
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8B1nKGIAeg
GOD IS AMAZING!
GAY MARRIAGE - My Term Paper
Forty-one American states define marriage as exclusively heterosexual, twenty-seven of
those have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and activist still press on wanting
marriage redefined. Is this fight about equal rights? Having already received the same rights as married couples, for the most part as a nationwide provision – homosexual activists are mobilizing for yet another attack on the heterosexual lifestyle. They have taken up the cause of redefining marriage.
Using the same guise of equality for all – the activists now seek to change the traditional
definition of marriage from man and wife – nationally to, ‘partners for life.’ This is an action
that will serve no function toward furthering rights of any kind. It merely stands as a selfish
gesture from selfish people, who do not wish to live in accord with traditional values. The moral
code that established the United States as a superpower is being dealt harsh blows from the
inside that threaten to destroy the very fiber it was established upon. With a war cry of
’Homosexual Equality!’ the gay and lesbian coalition with the support of the ACLU, tears little
pieces out of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence to use in rallying supporters
who do not want to see the whole picture or have been blinded by rhetoric. In this paper I will
show exactly what the historic documentation says and place it back in the original context.
The gay and lesbian coalition and ACLU use as a common ground the words ‘separation
of church and state’ and ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ as the basis for their
argument. Let us examine what our founding fathers said and meant.
THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Did our founding fathers want the church and state to be completely separate? History
Scholars teach that American independence and civil liberties was profoundly influenced by a
13th century document called the ‘Magna Carta.’ This document was a letter to England’s King
John, from his barons or local land owners; the opening paragraph, the preamble or premise
of which says:
“John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy
and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons,
justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects,
greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all
our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church
and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable
fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy
Roman Church, Henry, archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn
of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, Benedict
of Rochester, bishops; of Master Pandulf, sub-deacon and member of the household of our
lord the Pope, of brother Aymeric (master of the Knights of the Temple in England), and of the
illustrious men William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, William, earl of Salisbury, William, earl of
Warenne, William, earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway (constable of Scotland), Waren Fitz
Gerold, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert De Burgh (seneschal of Poitou), Hugh de Neville, Matthew
Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d'Aubigny, Robert of Roppesley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and others, our liegemen.” (The Magna Carta, 1215)
Give particular notice that the premise of this document by no means separates church from
state. It firmly and completely establishes God’s rightful place in every branch the
government in the ‘Primary Superpower’ of the time. Something that our forefather’s wanted
for us, the future American Colonies, their ancestors and heirs.
In the Declaration of Independence further states in its initial paragraphs say:
In Congress July 4, 1776 THE Unanimous Declaration of The Thirteen United
States of America; notice that the language used was drafted “In Congress, [and
by a] Unanimous Declaration of....”
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Declaration of Independence, 1776)
The Declaration of Independence was a public decree before the nations of the world and
appealing to whom for support to govern? Let us read the first sentence of the last paragraph and find out:
‘We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in
General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude
of our intentions…’ Again the document stipulates “in General Congress” (Declaration of
Independence, 1776).
The founding fathers wanted a separation church and state – yet appealed
to ‘the Supreme Judge of the World – in General Congress? The request in this declaration is
specific, decent and fair treatment according to the Laws of Nature and of Natures’ God as they
are endowed by the Creator... which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness AND to allow
the Supreme Judge of the World (GOD) to stand above them and hold them accountable. Where can we find evidence of creation, a creator AND the definitions of life, liberty, happiness and the
Supreme Judge of the world? Only one place – The BIBLE.
Since the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States says:
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances. (The Constitution of the United States, 1789)
It does not say that government and church should be separate, it says that government cannot
tell us what religion to practice or where to practice it.
Now that we have gone over the civil rights as they have been written, this action –
another request for homosexuals to change the definition of marriage stands in open defiance of
the will of the American people, which has already been hotly debated and solved through
legislation. Forty-one out of fifty states have laws that currently define marriage as ‘the union
between one man and one woman.’ Twenty-seven of those states have amended their state
constitutions to prohibit gay marriage. (Vestal 2008 and Petersen 2004) Why are
homosexuals still pressing to redefine marriage? It is not a matter of civil rights or civil liberties, therefore the ACLU should not be able to argue the homosexual agenda. What is the
homosexual agenda? According to confessed homosexuals as recorded in the book ‘Marriage on
Trial’ (Stanton and Maier 2004), we find several interesting points. First is that affirming gay
marriage will forever alter the meaning of marriage for everyone, not just homosexuals.
Historically the marriage relationship has been about the bringing together of one man and one
woman for a permanent, exclusive domestic and sexual relationship that brings forth children
and causes a given society to prosper. The second key point in the book is that the equality
argument is a rhetorical device adopted by the homosexual community to rally supporters. The freedom to marry was actually introduced by a Los Angeles Public Relations Firm, as a ploy to force gay marriage into the heterosexual mainstream. Allowing homosexuals to redefine marriage would categorize the terms male and female as meaningless interchangeable parts.
Shouldn’t two people who love each other be allowed to commit themselves to one another?
(Stanton and Maier 2004) Absolutely, but we do not always call that commitment marriage.
Parents commit themselves to children, but are not married; friends love and commit to one
another, but are not married; co-workers, athletes and soldiers commit to one another, but we do not call that married either. Marriage is about a whole lot more than just love and commitment. Why restrict marriage to persons of different gender? (Stanton and Maier 2004) If love and commitment were the only criteria for marriage and not gender than arguments for polygamy and polyamorism becomes an issue as well. If genders and numbers become no longer a question, what will stop the ‘new-family’ from becoming nuclear also? What if a same sex couple were, under the guise of family togetherness, to ask their sperm and egg donors to become part of their familial relationship? Polyamorists, polygamists, and hedonists stand eagerly at the wings, waiting to capitalize on the gains made by same sex marriage advocates. If you don’t believe this statement, you should Google Search the word POLYAMORY and see how much serious support there is for the same sex marriage. (Stanton and Maier 2004)
What about equal rights and justice for all in America? Homosexuals have the right to marry,
but no individual or group has the right to redefine marriage for themselves, when it affects the
whole society. The Equal Protection under law clause in the 14th amendment grants same sex
couples all the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples. The argument is not about rights at all. Factually speaking, historic figures for civil rights most brilliant minds never advocated
same sex marriage as a civil right. These figures include: Frederick Douglas, Mohandas K.
Gandhi, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, Elisabeth Cady-Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and the
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Not one of them ever hinted that marriage rights were an
impediment to human equality. It is important to note that in the Netherlands, were
gay marriage has been legal for several years sources acknowledge the fact that most gay
marriages only last 1.5 years, with the primary reason for dissolution being multiple partnership
jealousy. In the American culture, heterosexual relationships defined as traditional marriage last generally a minimum of ten years, with the primary reason for dissolution being irreconcilable differences. Professor Paul Nathanson, who is admittedly gay, says homosexual bonding involves purely copulation, while heterosexual relationships are formed for reproduction and the survival of the species. Heterosexual bonding is a cultural norm, not just a lifestyle choice. Over the years, many scientists, worldwide, have tried to establish the immutability of homosexuality but all attempts have met with failure. (Stanton and Maier 2004)
The truth of the issue is best defined by the prominent homosexual activist and leading voice the gay and lesbian community Michelangelo Signorile as quoted in OUT Magazine, a monthly
homosexual publication, “The trick is, gay leaders and pundits must stop watering the issue down – ‘this is simply about equality for gay couples’ – and offer same sex marriage for what it is: an opportunity to reconstruct a traditionally homophobic institution by bringing it to our more equitable queer value system,…a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture… Our gay leaders must acknowledge that gay marriage is just as radical and transformative as the religious right contends it is.” (Michelangelo Signorile, 1996)
So is gay marriage a human rights issue, not at all. It is a matter of selfish people whom
psychologists for several years have stated that homosexual behavior is: “a treatable form of
mental illness” (Bromberg, W.); “a learned behavior that can be [discouraged] through moral
upbringing” (LeBlanc, D. April 2005); “linked to a fair to poor parental relationships” (Bieber,
I., Dain, H., Dince, P., Drellich, M., Grand, H., Gundlach, R., et al.); “that is learned in the
formative years of adolescence.” (Helen Cothran In Current Controversies 2003). It is a matter of selfish people, not unlike King John, wanting to enforce their will on free people who have
already spoken and decided exactly what they want, for marriage - to be the union between one man and one woman. Perhaps this whole civil rights argument can best be summed up in a quote from the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” (King Jr., 1963) What is the content of American Character? Where can American Character or any character for that matter best be described? I am certain of one thing and that is experience has proven that tantrums thrown by spoiled children are best left ignored by people of character, who are properly educated. The law is specific and is LAW. Forty-one American states define marriage as exclusively heterosexual, twenty-seven of those have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and activist still press on wanting marriage redefined… the ‘New Revolutionary War’ marches on.
I was given 250/250 points for this...
those have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and activist still press on wanting
marriage redefined. Is this fight about equal rights? Having already received the same rights as married couples, for the most part as a nationwide provision – homosexual activists are mobilizing for yet another attack on the heterosexual lifestyle. They have taken up the cause of redefining marriage.
Using the same guise of equality for all – the activists now seek to change the traditional
definition of marriage from man and wife – nationally to, ‘partners for life.’ This is an action
that will serve no function toward furthering rights of any kind. It merely stands as a selfish
gesture from selfish people, who do not wish to live in accord with traditional values. The moral
code that established the United States as a superpower is being dealt harsh blows from the
inside that threaten to destroy the very fiber it was established upon. With a war cry of
’Homosexual Equality!’ the gay and lesbian coalition with the support of the ACLU, tears little
pieces out of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence to use in rallying supporters
who do not want to see the whole picture or have been blinded by rhetoric. In this paper I will
show exactly what the historic documentation says and place it back in the original context.
The gay and lesbian coalition and ACLU use as a common ground the words ‘separation
of church and state’ and ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ as the basis for their
argument. Let us examine what our founding fathers said and meant.
THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Did our founding fathers want the church and state to be completely separate? History
Scholars teach that American independence and civil liberties was profoundly influenced by a
13th century document called the ‘Magna Carta.’ This document was a letter to England’s King
John, from his barons or local land owners; the opening paragraph, the preamble or premise
of which says:
“John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy
and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons,
justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects,
greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all
our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church
and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable
fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy
Roman Church, Henry, archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn
of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, Benedict
of Rochester, bishops; of Master Pandulf, sub-deacon and member of the household of our
lord the Pope, of brother Aymeric (master of the Knights of the Temple in England), and of the
illustrious men William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, William, earl of Salisbury, William, earl of
Warenne, William, earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway (constable of Scotland), Waren Fitz
Gerold, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert De Burgh (seneschal of Poitou), Hugh de Neville, Matthew
Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d'Aubigny, Robert of Roppesley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and others, our liegemen.” (The Magna Carta, 1215)
Give particular notice that the premise of this document by no means separates church from
state. It firmly and completely establishes God’s rightful place in every branch the
government in the ‘Primary Superpower’ of the time. Something that our forefather’s wanted
for us, the future American Colonies, their ancestors and heirs.
In the Declaration of Independence further states in its initial paragraphs say:
In Congress July 4, 1776 THE Unanimous Declaration of The Thirteen United
States of America; notice that the language used was drafted “In Congress, [and
by a] Unanimous Declaration of....”
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Declaration of Independence, 1776)
The Declaration of Independence was a public decree before the nations of the world and
appealing to whom for support to govern? Let us read the first sentence of the last paragraph and find out:
‘We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in
General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude
of our intentions…’ Again the document stipulates “in General Congress” (Declaration of
Independence, 1776).
The founding fathers wanted a separation church and state – yet appealed
to ‘the Supreme Judge of the World – in General Congress? The request in this declaration is
specific, decent and fair treatment according to the Laws of Nature and of Natures’ God as they
are endowed by the Creator... which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness AND to allow
the Supreme Judge of the World (GOD) to stand above them and hold them accountable. Where can we find evidence of creation, a creator AND the definitions of life, liberty, happiness and the
Supreme Judge of the world? Only one place – The BIBLE.
Since the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States says:
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances. (The Constitution of the United States, 1789)
It does not say that government and church should be separate, it says that government cannot
tell us what religion to practice or where to practice it.
Now that we have gone over the civil rights as they have been written, this action –
another request for homosexuals to change the definition of marriage stands in open defiance of
the will of the American people, which has already been hotly debated and solved through
legislation. Forty-one out of fifty states have laws that currently define marriage as ‘the union
between one man and one woman.’ Twenty-seven of those states have amended their state
constitutions to prohibit gay marriage. (Vestal 2008 and Petersen 2004) Why are
homosexuals still pressing to redefine marriage? It is not a matter of civil rights or civil liberties, therefore the ACLU should not be able to argue the homosexual agenda. What is the
homosexual agenda? According to confessed homosexuals as recorded in the book ‘Marriage on
Trial’ (Stanton and Maier 2004), we find several interesting points. First is that affirming gay
marriage will forever alter the meaning of marriage for everyone, not just homosexuals.
Historically the marriage relationship has been about the bringing together of one man and one
woman for a permanent, exclusive domestic and sexual relationship that brings forth children
and causes a given society to prosper. The second key point in the book is that the equality
argument is a rhetorical device adopted by the homosexual community to rally supporters. The freedom to marry was actually introduced by a Los Angeles Public Relations Firm, as a ploy to force gay marriage into the heterosexual mainstream. Allowing homosexuals to redefine marriage would categorize the terms male and female as meaningless interchangeable parts.
Shouldn’t two people who love each other be allowed to commit themselves to one another?
(Stanton and Maier 2004) Absolutely, but we do not always call that commitment marriage.
Parents commit themselves to children, but are not married; friends love and commit to one
another, but are not married; co-workers, athletes and soldiers commit to one another, but we do not call that married either. Marriage is about a whole lot more than just love and commitment. Why restrict marriage to persons of different gender? (Stanton and Maier 2004) If love and commitment were the only criteria for marriage and not gender than arguments for polygamy and polyamorism becomes an issue as well. If genders and numbers become no longer a question, what will stop the ‘new-family’ from becoming nuclear also? What if a same sex couple were, under the guise of family togetherness, to ask their sperm and egg donors to become part of their familial relationship? Polyamorists, polygamists, and hedonists stand eagerly at the wings, waiting to capitalize on the gains made by same sex marriage advocates. If you don’t believe this statement, you should Google Search the word POLYAMORY and see how much serious support there is for the same sex marriage. (Stanton and Maier 2004)
What about equal rights and justice for all in America? Homosexuals have the right to marry,
but no individual or group has the right to redefine marriage for themselves, when it affects the
whole society. The Equal Protection under law clause in the 14th amendment grants same sex
couples all the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples. The argument is not about rights at all. Factually speaking, historic figures for civil rights most brilliant minds never advocated
same sex marriage as a civil right. These figures include: Frederick Douglas, Mohandas K.
Gandhi, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, Elisabeth Cady-Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and the
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Not one of them ever hinted that marriage rights were an
impediment to human equality. It is important to note that in the Netherlands, were
gay marriage has been legal for several years sources acknowledge the fact that most gay
marriages only last 1.5 years, with the primary reason for dissolution being multiple partnership
jealousy. In the American culture, heterosexual relationships defined as traditional marriage last generally a minimum of ten years, with the primary reason for dissolution being irreconcilable differences. Professor Paul Nathanson, who is admittedly gay, says homosexual bonding involves purely copulation, while heterosexual relationships are formed for reproduction and the survival of the species. Heterosexual bonding is a cultural norm, not just a lifestyle choice. Over the years, many scientists, worldwide, have tried to establish the immutability of homosexuality but all attempts have met with failure. (Stanton and Maier 2004)
The truth of the issue is best defined by the prominent homosexual activist and leading voice the gay and lesbian community Michelangelo Signorile as quoted in OUT Magazine, a monthly
homosexual publication, “The trick is, gay leaders and pundits must stop watering the issue down – ‘this is simply about equality for gay couples’ – and offer same sex marriage for what it is: an opportunity to reconstruct a traditionally homophobic institution by bringing it to our more equitable queer value system,…a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture… Our gay leaders must acknowledge that gay marriage is just as radical and transformative as the religious right contends it is.” (Michelangelo Signorile, 1996)
So is gay marriage a human rights issue, not at all. It is a matter of selfish people whom
psychologists for several years have stated that homosexual behavior is: “a treatable form of
mental illness” (Bromberg, W.); “a learned behavior that can be [discouraged] through moral
upbringing” (LeBlanc, D. April 2005); “linked to a fair to poor parental relationships” (Bieber,
I., Dain, H., Dince, P., Drellich, M., Grand, H., Gundlach, R., et al.); “that is learned in the
formative years of adolescence.” (Helen Cothran In Current Controversies 2003). It is a matter of selfish people, not unlike King John, wanting to enforce their will on free people who have
already spoken and decided exactly what they want, for marriage - to be the union between one man and one woman. Perhaps this whole civil rights argument can best be summed up in a quote from the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” (King Jr., 1963) What is the content of American Character? Where can American Character or any character for that matter best be described? I am certain of one thing and that is experience has proven that tantrums thrown by spoiled children are best left ignored by people of character, who are properly educated. The law is specific and is LAW. Forty-one American states define marriage as exclusively heterosexual, twenty-seven of those have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and activist still press on wanting marriage redefined… the ‘New Revolutionary War’ marches on.
I was given 250/250 points for this...
Bin Laden Plans New Attacks - Bigger than 9/11 (Courtesy of NEWSMAX)
Bin Laden Plans New Attacks Bigger Than 9/11
Monday, November 10, 2008 5:01 PMBy: Chris Gonsalves
Fugitive terrorist Osama bin Laden is planning new attacks against the U.S. that will "outdo by far" the attacks of 9/11, according to a report in a London-based Arabic newspaper.
The paper, Al-Quds Al-Arabi, quotes a former senior Yemeni Al-Qaida official saying the terror group is now in a “positive phase,” of staffing and rebuilding training camps around the globe. The action will lead to the next “wave of action” against the U.S., the paper reported.
“This will be shown by the fact that we now control a major part of the south of Somalia," the Yemeni source told the paper.
According to the report, bin Laden is personally involved in the preparations and is looking to "change the face of world politics and economics.”
The paper is edited by Abdel al-Bari Atwan, the last journalist to interview bin Laden in 1996.
The Yemeni operative says he remains in contact with current Al-Qaida chiefs. He claims bin Laden sent a message to all jihad cells in the Arab world six months ago urging them not to interact with their governments or local political parties.
More signs of al-Qaida’s violent intentions are expected over the next few days, the paper reported.
The al-Qaida warning comes just one day after The Telegraph newspaper published a leaked government report showing thousands of extremists are active in the U.K. The document says the operatives are mostly native Brits between 18 and 30. Many have been trained in overseas terrorist camps.
Security officials warned that al-Qaida will attempt another "spectacular" in the U.K., likely focused on airports or train stations, The Telegraph reported. Other potential targets include the Houses of Parliament, and Whitehall, Buckingham and St James' palaces.
Monday, November 10, 2008 5:01 PMBy: Chris Gonsalves
Fugitive terrorist Osama bin Laden is planning new attacks against the U.S. that will "outdo by far" the attacks of 9/11, according to a report in a London-based Arabic newspaper.
The paper, Al-Quds Al-Arabi, quotes a former senior Yemeni Al-Qaida official saying the terror group is now in a “positive phase,” of staffing and rebuilding training camps around the globe. The action will lead to the next “wave of action” against the U.S., the paper reported.
“This will be shown by the fact that we now control a major part of the south of Somalia," the Yemeni source told the paper.
According to the report, bin Laden is personally involved in the preparations and is looking to "change the face of world politics and economics.”
The paper is edited by Abdel al-Bari Atwan, the last journalist to interview bin Laden in 1996.
The Yemeni operative says he remains in contact with current Al-Qaida chiefs. He claims bin Laden sent a message to all jihad cells in the Arab world six months ago urging them not to interact with their governments or local political parties.
More signs of al-Qaida’s violent intentions are expected over the next few days, the paper reported.
The al-Qaida warning comes just one day after The Telegraph newspaper published a leaked government report showing thousands of extremists are active in the U.K. The document says the operatives are mostly native Brits between 18 and 30. Many have been trained in overseas terrorist camps.
Security officials warned that al-Qaida will attempt another "spectacular" in the U.K., likely focused on airports or train stations, The Telegraph reported. Other potential targets include the Houses of Parliament, and Whitehall, Buckingham and St James' palaces.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
