RightFaith Clouds military


Welcome To RightFaith
I Enjoyed Writing These
RightFaith BlogRoll
Aggregators

Friday, January 06, 2006

Coming to U.S. Television--if Secular Progressivist have their way

Derry Journal - the latest news, sport, business and entertainment from Derry

We all know that there is a movement to radically change American culture into a culture that mirrors Europe. This movement's chief supporters are the ACLU, the PFAW, and most of the leaders in the democratic party. I'll passionately oppose them until I die.

In Ireland, a public official has had enough and plans to do something about it. This is what secular progressivists want to see on American televsion:
A Unionist councillor in Limavady has been so incensed by scenes of homosexual behaviour being shown before the 9pm watershed, he is to contact the Independent Television Commission (ITC) over the issue.

The DUP's Leslie Cubitt said he was shocked when watching a soap opera with his five-year-old grand daughter, to see two men kissing.

Cllr Cubitt said: "I do not think this is appropriate viewing for that time of the evening, it was around two hours before the watershed and I was appalled.

"My granddaughter turned to me and asked 'boys don't kiss each other, do they?'. I think it's a disgrace that scenes of this nature are on at this time.

"I am not prudish, nor am I a religious zealot, if these scenes were on after nine o'clock I still wouldn't agree with them morally, but at least it would be after the watershed and children would not be exposed to it. I thought soaps were generally considered to be family entertainment but this was anything but!"
Good luck. Those without the foresight to see the building momentum of a ball that rolls downhill, will also not have the strength to stop it.

Thoughtful Readers Speak:
" I thought soaps were generally considered to be family entertainment"

Since when? All the soaps I have seen are about backstabbing, and sex. Since when are they for the family?

Now, let me ask. Had that scene been a makeout scene between a man and a women, would this man have been appauled?
No.
 
You're right, he probably would not have been appauled. I suppose homosexual make-out sessions can concern even the most debase people.

Maybe 'soaps' have a different meaning in Ireland.
 
So it would just be classic viewpoint discrimination, then. Men and women kissing before the watershed is fine, same-sex kissing isn't? That would be allowing religious preferences to dictate freedom of expression; no good in America, at least. But we have a Bill of Rights to protect our freedoms, so who knows how an unprotected country will decide what to do.
 
Do you not have a remote control? Is your TV stuck on the homo channel, JR? There is quite a lot of Christian garbage on the television but it doesn't bother me, since I have a remote control. I simply turn the channel or turn off the TV when something comes on I am not interested in. I would also like to point out that it isn't society's job to raise your kids. If you don't want your children watching something, that's your business, not mine and not the government's.
 
is there a homo-channel? Well, if there is, I wouldn't know. I'd turn the channel. :)

Domestic violence doesn't effect me either. I don't do it and those close to me don't do it; but, I feel compassion for the victims. Don't you think it proper that when something ills our society that we should take a stand on it--even when it doesn't effect us directly? And, in turn, act to change it?

I do. And I think our founders did. In the Constitution they talk about promoting the common good; they didn't say 'establishing' (or some other active verb) the common good. That means that its up to the citizens, you and me even when we disagree, to use our resources to establish the common good in our communities.

I think the real issue is what is good and who defines it.

I'm impressed by this Irish politician who is taking a stand; it's people willing to stand up against the majrity who deserve our respect--at least for trying.
 
I don't see that it's the government's job to protect the lies you tell your children. And if you or anybody else told your child that people of the same sex don't kiss, or don't have sex, then you lied to them.

And I'd almost be shocked to see a conservative argue greater government intrusion into our freedoms, except that's what the conservative movement has always really stood for.
 
Do you know what the difference is between domestic abuse and homosexuality? Domestic abuse involves hurting another human being, while homosexuality involves two consenting adults and nobody is hurt.
 
Actually, much of male homosexuality is quite dangerous because it involves the exchange and ingesting of fecal matter.
 
Randy you've equivocated on the term "dangerous"; the relevant danger we're discussing is how homosexuality is dangerous to society, not how certain acts may be dangerous to the participants.

Moreover, anal sex is an act much more likely to be performed by heterosexuals than by homosexuals.

But it's good to know that, apparently, you have no objections to lesbianism.
 
As John Donne aptly wrote 300 years ago, no man is an island (of course, we are so much smarter than people of the past such as the silly Founding Fathers). Therefore, a danger to one does affect us all. What always amazes me is the cavalier attitude some hold regarding the health consequences faced by those who practice homosexual behavior--not a loving attitude at all. Confer www.narth.org. And please do not make the illogical assumption that I support female homosexuality just because I did not mention it in my earlier post. Lesbians also face a greatly reduced lifespan when compared to normal heterosexual females (and I do mean "normal"--your human anatomy should teach you that).
 
Uh-huh. Why don't you consult pubmed.org instead? It's connected with the National Library of Medicine, the National Institute of Health, and the National Center for Biotechnology Information. There you will find citations and on-line articles from a large number of reputable journals. Randy, you seem to have a problem with sources.
 
What's wrong with NARTH? I guarantee that these folks know a whole lot more about the abnormal psychology of homosexuality than either you or I do!
 
What's wrong with NARTH? You mean, besides being a totally discredited front for Socarides to promulgate his personal opinions on homsexuality, opinions that have been completely repudiated by the factual evidence and completely rejected by objective social scientists and psychologists? Aside from that?

Well, how about their history of plagarism and fraudulent research practices?

Nobody takes Socarides seriously. He's a sham.
 
The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality

"Those who advocate full acceptance of homosexual behavior choose to downplay the growing and incontrovertible evidence regarding the serious, life-threatening health effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle."

Enjoy.
 
Smoking kills, too; should we make it illegal for people to smoke?

If he works in construction, I'd say that Randy has a pretty risky job. Should we make it illegal for him to do his job?

Some gay activities may be risky. But there's nothing that homosexuals are doing that heterosexuals aren't doing as well. Absolutely nothing. Should we make certain sex acts illegal? Should the government be intruding in every aspect of our lives out of a misguided effort to keep us "safe"?

I thought you guys were conservatives. How can you countenance a massive government expansion to control what people do?
 
Well said, "Some gay activities may be risky;" but to say anything otherwise would be to neglect fact.

Just as homosexuals have the right to enter into civil debate regarding the 'merits' of homosexuality, those opposing it have that same right. You certainly don't support the abridging of our first amendment rights, do you?

Many conservatives do no advocate for making homosexual acts (between two human, age-appropriate, consensual adults) illegal. While morally concerned about the people, it's America for goodness sakes homosexuals can do anything they want.

Where conservatives contribute is in supporting homosexuality and its propagation in public policy: needless hate crimes legislation, defining homosexuality as a civil right instead of sexual preference, defining a consensual sexual relationship as a marriage, permitting sexual companions to adopt, etc.
 
You certainly don't support the abridging of our first amendment rights, do you?

No, say anything you like. What power do I have to stop you? But your right of free speech doesn't set you beyond criticism for your speech.

It's not the speech of retro-liberals like yourself that I'm concerned about. It's your penchant for making laws that infringe on the rights of Americans that concerns me.

defining a consensual sexual relationship as a marriage

That's what marriage is, though. When two men or two women are married, what do you think changes? Inheritance of property goes the same way, sponsorship of citizenship goes the same way, custodial obligations to children go the same way.

Everything goes the same way except for how many penises and vaginas and breasts show up when you invite them out to couples tennis. And what on Earth does that matter?
 
It matters because it's gross. Duh.
 
So Charles W. Socarides is to be discredited simply on Chet's say-so? My question is: why is Chet so invested in protecting and promoting an unhealthy lifestyle? Is the promiscuity associated with homosexuality worth it?
 
Worth it for me? How would I know? I'm neither gay nor promiscuous.

Do you think there's any shortage of promiscuity among straight people, Randy? I've never heard anything more ridiculous than the idea that gay people are gay because its easier to be promiscuous that way.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. For straight people, they have these people that will gladly sleep with you in exchange for money. Maybe you've heard of them? They call them "prostitutes."

At any rate, Charles Socarides is to be discredited because he offers conclusions for which he has no evidence, or, in many cases, has fabricated the evidence. There's no scientific or medical basis to his positions.

I have nothing invested in protecting the rights of gay persons, other than a love of individual freedom and the recognition that the constriction of another's rights forms the precident for the constriction of my own. That's a principle people like you should keep well in mind, Randy.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Chet, you said, "That's what marriage is, though." referring to "defining a consensual sexual relationship as a marriage."

You can't possibly mean that you have to be married to have sex; instead, you probably mean that the only thing that differentiates a marriage relationship from others is sex.

I'm sorry that your parents, community, and society at large has failed you so greatly to give you such a low view of marriage. Yet, you agreed to think that way so we can't blame them too much. Marriage is so much more and until you realize that, your marriage will be shallow, self-centered, and left wanting.
 
Most conversation on RightFaith is civil; but, I will at times delete posts that I find offensive and deem to be qualitativiely lacking. I do it sparingly because I value the free flow of thought. I suppose that the great thing about being the site administrator.
 
You can't possibly mean that you have to be married to have sex; instead, you probably mean that the only thing that differentiates a marriage relationship from others is sex.

Yes. That's what differentiates marriage from other civil arrangements that confer joint ownership of property, power of attorney, and other privliges: the participants cohabitate and have sex.

That's why, in many states, you're not technically married until the first act of intercourse.

I'm sorry that your parents, community, and society at large has failed you so greatly to give you such a low view of marriage.

I have a very high view of marriage, having gone through quite a bit so far to remain in one. I'm sorry that you have such a low view of sex.

Marriage is so much more and until you realize that, your marriage will be shallow, self-centered, and left wanting.

I'll thank you to keep personal comments about me and my wife to yourself.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
RIGHTFAITH: Where everything favors the stewardship of patrimony. All content is believed to be correct but may be amended based upon new information. The content of this page may be republished with proper citation without the expressed consent of the author. This site is not, in any manner whatsoever, associated with the religious philosophism from the Indian penninsula. All comments or emails to the author become the property of the author and may be published or deleted without notice or reason provided. Copyrighted 2005.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Social Conservative Action Centers

Archives
Web Blog Pinging Service
allianceanonymous


Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!
GOP Bloggers
rwn