Star Tribune Columnist calls for more laws focusing on special treatment for gays and lesbians!
October 15th, 2007 | by admin |Ah, you’ve got to love claims of discrimination which are really just calls for special treatment!
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1481688.html
This is not discrimination. You see, the author here seems to be after an endorsement for his sexual behavior. A behavior which most people including our founding fathers don’t believe constitutes a family. A traditional family is defined as between one man and one woman. Nature shows us the same thing. It is impossible for anyone other than a man and a woman to make a child. This is not opinion, this is fact. Therefore based on scientific evidence and based on the traditional Judeo-Christian values on which our nation was founded it’s simply not an issue worth debating. The government has made laws geared around the traditional family because it is the bedrock of our civilization. (In fact the three major religions which make up most of civilization as we know it, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam denounce homosexuality as unnatural.)
Now our Government doesn’t restrict sexual behaviors unless they directly trample on the rights of the innocent. Rape and child molestation are obvious examples of this. Homosexual behavior, adulterous behavior, promiscuous behavior are not illegal because they do not DIRECTLY trample on the rights of the innocent. You may do in your bedroom what you please, that is between you and God. Don’t expect a government founded on Judeo-Christian principles (which consider homosexuality to be a deviant anti-family sexual behavior) to provide special rights though. As far as our history is concerned and as far as most traditional Americans are concerned that’s exactly how it should be.
Now another argument made is, “What about the children that are part of these relationships, don’t they suffer?” I would argue that gay and lesbian partners should not be allowed to adopt. In this case the government would also be endorsing this behavior. These folks should not be allowed to care for a child that was not born to them. It puts a child in an unnatural family environment and immediately affects them during those young and impressionable years. In short, it’s anti-family and it tramples on the children’s rights as individuals.
Believe it or not there are two other hypothetical situations that come to mind in this day and age in which we live. One would be a lesbian couple that has one of the two women go and get pregnant so the two women can raise the child. The other involves a split up between two parents where one or both turn to a homosexual relationship after having had kids. That’s quite the conundrum indeed and several factors should be weighed in my opinion. The government should not condone this and offer special treatment in this case either, but I’m not sure they should step in to the situation. In fact, I’m almost convinced they shouldn’t step into any situation and separate children from their birth parents unless their is evidence that the child’s life is in immediate danger or they are being sexually abused. Otherwise where do you draw the line? But, I digress.
The point of this conversation was that behavior contrary to the traditional family, contrary to the morality on which this country was founded, and contrary to nature does not deserve special treatment or endorsement by the government of Minnesota or the United States of America. End of story.
By Chris on Oct 15, 2007
Christianity, Judaism and Islam make up 54% of the world’s population, but of course, not all segments of those religions “denounce homosexuality as unnatural.” You mention that homosexuality is “a behavior which most people … don’t believe constitutes a family.” I can’t dispute that, but can you point me to some evidence that shows this to be the case? The implication the writer of the article makes is that the overwhelming majority of Minnesotans do believe homosexual couples can constitute a family.
By Political Muse on Oct 16, 2007
A couple other points to add (not that it will make it onto the blog given Andy’s hatred of free speech and open dialogue) to Chris since he seems to have covered inconsistencies pretty well.
1. While the founders may have been Christian in the broadest sense of the word, it does not mean that they wanted this country to be run by religious principles. From Article VI of the Constitution which says that NO religious test will be required in order to serve to the Treaty of Tripoli that claimed explicitly that this is NOT a Christian nation the evidence does not add up for theocracy in America.
2. The word homosexuality does not exist in the Bible despite modern interpretations that have shoved it in. Actually, the Bible is relatively ambiguous when it comes to the subject and I would encourage anyone to check out this site (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm).
Andy, when you wished death upon Barack Obama, was that a Pro-Life position? WWJD?
political_muse@hotmail.com
By Andy Barnett on Oct 16, 2007
I believe history speaks for itself when it comes to what constitutes a family and what does not. Not just American history but the history of civilization as we know it.
Political Muse: The Bible is very clear on this matter both in the old and new testament. Let me refer you to Paul’s letter to the Romans, Chapter 1.
Romans 1:24-28 (NASB)
“Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”
PS. In regards to the Obama situation we were obviously joking around, but if you want to get right down to it Mr. Anonymous (Political Muse) the fact is that anyone who condones the murder of millions of innocent children like Mr. Obama does, and has done nothing to reverse this tragedy while serving in public office, should be held accountable. You know there are a lot of people who believe in an eye for an eye, and perhaps Obama is guilty by association with the slaughtering of millions of lives. Try chewing on that one!
By Chris on Oct 17, 2007
I happen to agree with your stance on homosexuality, but I’m not sure an appeal to history is a very reliable approach. Historically, people believed that the world was flat, that it was okay for some humans to own other humans and that all diseases were caused by evil spirits.