Past DOMA Coverage (July 2004)
Guest Editorial
Standing up for Your Values Now & in November is much cheaper than it may soon be
Past DOMA Coverage (July 2004)
What should we do when we become aware of thoughts that
others have, and we disagree with them ?
Should we yell "HATE CRIME" and try to have them jailed ?
The solution to Hate Crimes, is not tougher laws. As others have said, laws
already exist and are plenty tough.
The solution to true problems of Prejudice, is to confront a person (in a nice
way when possible) and share with them the errors of their REASONING.
It is reasoning ...and education...and Facts...that can make the difference.
But in order for this to be the case, both parties - involved in any discussion-
would have to admit that:
1) there is a right
2) there is a wrong
3) we have the capacity to determine this
4) cause and effect matter, and
5) the process of the discussion ...will involve the suspension of any personal
attacks during the time of the discussion.
The Problem is that many people today do not believe in right & wrong. They
believe in being "fair".
In the brave new world of being "fair", no one is entitled to any
moral standards, because that would be agreeing with the concept that there
actually is a Moral right and a Moral
wrong...and people - ordinary people - can
actually think and determine this amongst each other...when they are truly
attempting to do this.
Instead...it is any kind of moral conclusion that is (or will be) outlawed. No
one can make any claim to true morality, since it is (according to hate speech
advocates) impossible to determine morality.
But if that were the case, then by what standard would the thought police judge
anyone ?
The standard would be simple: anyone who passes judgement
on another human being, would be guilty of being Intolerant and hateful.
Under this model, everyone deserves an equal say, because we are all equal.
the Victim of Rape may deserve their moment, but the rapist may have had his
reasons. The bombing victims may loose a limb, but the terrorists "has his
reasons". The Jews may have hard a "hard time", but the point of
the Nazis
cannot be Automatically condemned. The Baby may want to live, but the
"doctor" is entitled to his opinion...
The solution to this is to resist those who attempt to squelch debate by
labeling, by claiming to be automatically discriminated against (that one is
always a "good one" - no proof needed), and especially...claim to not
be able to rise above their "personal pain".
We need to go back to the standards of Morals and Reasoning:
If something is right, it is right because God approves of it. If it is wrong,
it is wrong because God disaproves of
it. That might seem like a shock to some
people today, But we must come to terms with what the standard is to be, for
what is right and what is wrong.
If we want a standard for law outside of ourselves, it can only be God, because
there is no other. IF people decide to take God out of the laws, they should
keep that decision in mind...for the days when the revolution they
started...takes no thought of their inherent God-given worth.
It is much easier to let this genie out of the bottle...than it is to put it
back in.
Stand up for Your Rights - While you still have them
The spectacular success of the homosexual movement
The spectacular success of the homosexual movement stands as
one of the most fascinating phenomena of our time. In less than two decades,
homosexuality has moved from "the love that dares not speak its name,"
to the center of America's public life. The homosexual agenda has advanced even
more quickly than its most ardent proponents had expected, and social change of
this magnitude demands some explanation.
A partial explanation of the homosexual movement's success can be traced to the
1989 publication of "After the Ball: How America Will
Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s." Published with
little fanfare, this book became the authoritative public relations manual for
the homosexual agenda, and its authors presented the book as a distillation of
public relations advice for the homosexual community. A look back at its pages
is an occasion for understanding just how successful their plan was.
Authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen combined psychiatric and public
relations expertise in devising their strategy. Kirk, a researcher in
neuropsychiatry, and Madsen, a public relations consultant, argued that
homosexuals must change their presentation to the heterosexual community if real
success was to be made.
Conceiving their book as a "gay manifesto for the 1990s," the authors
called for homosexuals to repackage themselves as mainstream citizens demanding
equal treatment, rather than as a promiscuous sexual minority seeking greater
opportunity and influence.
Writing just as the AIDS crisis hit its greatest momentum, the authors saw the
disease as an opportunity to change the public mind. "As cynical as it may
seem, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a
victimized minority legitimately deserving of America's special protection and
care," they wrote.
Give them credit: they really did understand the operation of the public mind.
Kirk and Madsen called for homosexuals to talk incessantly about homosexuality
in public. "Open, frank talk makes gayness seem less furtive, alien, and
sinful; more above board," they asserted. "Constant talk builds the
impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a
sizeable bloc -- the most modern, up-to-date citizens -- accept or even practice
homosexuality."
Nevertheless, not all talk about homosexuality is helpful. "And when we say
talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of the
campaign, the public should not be shocked and repelled by
premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.
The Role of Government - Whose Morality ?
The Purpose of the government is to govern, to regulate the conduct of people,
to approve what is good and to disaprove what is evil. The Book of Proverbs in
the Old Testament is filled with contrasts between Moral Leaders of Government
(Rulers) and Immoral Leaders of Government.
Government is not simply about government “services”. According to the
Bible, one of the main purposes of government is to resist evil, to fight
against evil.
This is something that the government Should be doing. All law is – by its
very nature – the imposition of someone’s morality – against the
“morality” of those who do not agree.
The Government enforces the morality of the citizen Against the "morality"
of the murderer.
The Government enforces the morality of the citizen Against the "morality"
of the drug dealer.
People say that Government can’t legislate morality. That is simply a
falsehood. The fact is that ALL law IS the legislation of morality. It is not
that way because We want it
to be that way. It is that way because that is what Law is: The Legislating of
Morality.
No law is Anarchy. Sharia Law is Islamic Law. All laws in the world are based on some kind of moral code. Without a moral code or a code of morality, laws do not exist.
It is impossible to say that something is illegal, without also saying that the action which is illegal is also implicitly immoral. That IS the basis of a Judeo-Christian society.
The Gay War against the Status of Women
The Special Status of Married Women in the west
(and why they need to fight for it)
It is true that Government confers a special status upon those who are married.
But it happens to be the special status that GOD established in order to protect
women and children.
Men as a rule do not need that level of protection, because – often – their
own size acts to some extent as a deterent to the harmful actions of others. But
women usually being smaller, are in need of some kind of force – that would
restrain the actions of some men who might do them harm.
Marriage is a protection for Women. It is designed
to take the relationship which is most precious to her, and place that
relationship in an exalted status within society. Under that set of guidelines,
it means that the status of a woman who is married means:
1. that she is DESERVING of the protection
of society, for helping that marriage to work.
2. that the laws would Favor that kind of
“married” relationship, instead of simply people who live together. This is
not only for the emotional & personal Security that marriage would bring to
women, but also because marriage is one of the few ways that encourages men to
take care of the children that they engender.
The result of working Against marriage...is that first the protections and
security for married women are erroded, and right after that...the protection
for those children, by having that man know for a Fact that those children are
his – is what encourages that man to take care of his children (when he can be
involved with the raising of those children on an active basis).
Remember it was the idea of the protection of Virtuous Women, because the
implication was that UN-Virtuous women would offer men “temporary offers”
– that would cause men to drift towards the least committed relationship.
The issues of Marriage – in fact – have always been about the rivalry
between 1) women who have true Moral Virtue and want
to have this as the standard and 2) women who could
not care less about morality, were willing to get their own needs met in the
moment, and would then tempt other men...in the community....with the same lack
of moral standards.
What is interesting these days...is that many married women do not seem to
understand this (with many on this site being part of the exception). Many women
are increasingly seeing marriage as an “artificial restraint”. What is lost
in all of this is the fact that originally – the marriage relationship – was
something Explicitly established and ordained by God.
There are many passages in the Old Testament where the point is for the
community leaders to insist on two aspects of morality:
The Morality of Men (regarding women)
The Morality of Women (regarding marriage)
Government was involved as the agent which regulates the conduct of people in
communities. It is the job of government not only to defend its citizens, but to
act as a restrainer of evil.
That is what the police do – act as restrainers of evil – each time they
arrest a drug dealer, or a prostitute: the charge against both is the same: that
they are undermining society and harming others.
But since most people today Want government to stop restraining evil, the
obvious result is that Evil will only increase. And as people understand more
and more the wrong premise that “all conduct is moral”, women will have less
and less protection.
The Gay rights movement is about the attempt of Gay leaders to force government
leaders to agree that their conduct is both morally right and what Should be
taking place.
THAT is what the Gay rights movement makes a point of saying that IT wants: it
does not simply and only want the de-criminalization of their behavior, it wants
the Government to state that Gay conduct is what SHOULD be taking place.
The average person may not understand this. But gay rights leaders have
demonstrated time and again, that they really Do understand – the moral
aspects of their revolution, as well as the legal ones.
In order to observe the views of what happen in a country where citizens have No
moral restraint, simply look at India. Many of the worship of the 300 million
gods there ...inherently DISAGREE with the premise that women should be
protected. And when women are not protected, two things rapidly increase: 1)
prostitution and 2) the treatment of children as Property, rather than as those
who are made in the image of God.
Christianity provides the answers for the protection of women. But when
Christianity is legislated out of the laws, obviously those laws stop being
Christian and stop protecting women.
Whether it should be that way or not, it will be that way. Only Christianity
provides the backbone that people need – on a moral level – for the
enforcement of laws against unrighteous conduct.
Those who want the government to stop legislating morality, are soon enough to
find out, just how chaotic and violent society becomes, as government –
literally – stops legislating morality.
The reason why Goverment grants Marriage a degree of protection not afforded
other relationships is because Marriage is the best arrangement possible that
can be made in order to protect righteous women.
Here is the bitter pill: women have usually been the enforcers of personal
morality, while men were the enforcers of public morality. But cowardly gutless
men these days – refuse to lead. Women should disregard this lack of
leadership, constantly lobby their men to protect them...in society.
Women who are truly virtuous and wise, and understand the implications of gay
rights laws, will rightly understand that the competition is for 1) who society
protects and 2) who gets custody of the children. But if those women do not
themselves go and fight for this by calling and writing their legislators and
explaining this to other women, then they will loose their monopoly on
government enforced restraint of evil.
Men should lead. But the fact is that women can understand many of these
implications easier than men, who are too busy thinking about the next
distraction, the next football game. Men often do not lead until women actively
ask them to lead, and help them to understand how they should lead. In a society
of true Christian men who are leaders, women would not have this explaining to
do. Since our society long ago abandoned true Christian leadership, men today
would need a lot of explanation, and a great deal of constant encouragement on
the issue of their involvement.
When government becomes un-righteous, then those who are righteous will quickly
find that they are perceived as the enemy, for opposing the state. The fight for
gay rights is about who gets to decide what group the goverment (the monopoly of
physical force) will protect: either the women who are righteous, or the forces
in society that actively seek to Undo that righteousness.
Christians are taught that while they can love sinners on a personal level, that
this is not the same thing as allowing the government to stop enforcing moral
standards. The Government is not an agent of “neutrality”. Those who think
it is have no understanding of politics. Government is either working for the
interests of the people, or against the interests of the people.
The money and organization that Gay rights groups have (with the help of the
media) are very effective in their work against Conventional morality. Only by
standing up much more actively for their own rights, will christians retain any
rights.
Radical
Lesbian Festival Featured
Homosexual Acts Performed in Front of Children
FORMER TRANSSEXUAL SAYS CHRIST HELPED HIM RECLAIM HIS MALE IDENTITY A former transsexual is telling the country about a life-changing decision that he says resulted in true healing and a peace that passes all understanding. More details: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/212004b.asp
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS REFUSE POLICY CHANGES REDEFINING GENDER Despite the threat of losing millions of dollars in state and federal funding, a California school board is refusing to adopt a new anti-discrimination policy that would offer special protective status to transsexuals and others confused about their gender. More details: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/252004a.asp
EMPLOYERS PONDER SAME-SEX BENEFITS QUESTIONS Those who believe the homosexual marriage issue does not affect them may want to rethink their stand when its economic impact reaches their wallets. More details: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/252004b.asp
Zero Tolerance Laws Invading Parents Rights
Parents of Son or Daughter who is Gay
YWCA a Radical Feminist Lobby Group
The Importance of Mothers and Fathers
Democratic Leadership Promotes Homosexuality?
by Senator Serphin R. Maltese
Transgender Rights Bill Introduced
Is
Church and American Sovereignty Under Assault?
Court
favors judge who wrote 'anti-gay' letter
Expression
of his private beliefs protected by U.S. Constitution
Pedophilia No Longer a "Disorder", Psychiatric
Association Decides
by Alan P. Medinger
The inevitable has happened. Ever since the American Psychiatric
Association removed homosexuality as a disorder listed in its Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual (DSM-III) in 1973, many of us have wondered by what
logic they continued to list pedophilia, exhibitionism, sadism and
masochism and other sexual aberrations as disorders in subsequent DSM
revisions.
DSM-IV
and Pedophilia: What Did the APA Do?
Pediatrics Group
Endorses Homosexual Adoption… But New Policy Places Children at Risk
by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D.
Vice President, NARTH
On February 3rd, The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a policy
statement endorsing adoption by same-sex couples, saying they can provide
the same emotionally healthy family life as heterosexual parents. The
academy is urging its 55,000 members to take an active role in supporting
laws that allow gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered individuals to
adopt the children of the individuals with whom they cohabit.
But this new policy is based on politics, not science. Sadly, although AAP
policy carries significant weight in our nation's courts, it is not in the
best interests of children, whose interests the AAP claims to represent.
Hate Crimes Sneaks Into Defense Authorization Bill
Note: The most effective step left is to make your views known to Senator John Warner and Senator Orin Hatch.
Defense of Marriage ? Impending DEFEAT OF D.O.M.A.
(Defense of Marriage Act)
Supporters are trying to bring the DOMA
legislation to a vote next week, currently there are not enough
votes. We were shocked to learn that senators - even in
conservative midwestern states - were not planning on supporting this amendment!
If you support the amendment, take the time to e-mail your Senator - they do listen if they hear enough voices, and
we undertstand they are not receiving much in the way of support for this amendment.
Here is a link to contact your
Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/index.htm