It wouldn’t be the first time that a straw man was used to divert attention from an underlying agenda.
Here’s my position on gay marriage, and marriage in general. The current definition of marriage is that it is between a man and a woman. as defined in Genesis. That is the classic definition borne out of the Christian doctrine that defines marriage in general. The point of marriage is for the resulting children to have a balance of two parents: masculine and femine. The point is procreation with an evolutionary balance for the resulting children.
This is the theory. Obviously that is not how marriages always turn out, but it is a guideline of what it should be. If this definition is changed to include gay couples, then in my opinion, it is no longer marriage. It is now some kind of legal agreement. That is not to say that gay couples shouldn’t be together. That’s not what I’m saying. What I am saying is that marriage between same sex couples is not marriage per se. If you are talking about the legal rights bestowed upon married couples, then that is another issue entirely. You can call it marriage, but it is really something else using the term marriage. Domestic partnerships can be designed to bestow, really, an unlimited amount of rights that traditional married couples enjoy, so a raging debate (and recent, at least publicly) over the terminology seems a bit strange. Why is the debate focused on terminology, and not the general concept of partnerships? This could become a non-issue overnight.
This is just a theory, but if 2+2=4…Barack Obama is about to sign the latest hate crime legislation coming from Washington. That legislation specifically requires penalties for a person committing violence due someone’s sexual orientation. When Rep. Steve King tried to include language that would exclude pedophiles from protection, it was struck down. Why would that be? A one liner excluding pedophiles from federal hate crime protection? This could only be construed by those that opposed King’s language of support for pedophilia. One line. What does this have to do with gay marriage? It specifically protects sexual orientation. That language is a bit vague though, and all King wanted to do is define it, or at least make it clear who would not be covered. Still, that’s a pretty weak link. That it is.
The Alameda school district near San Francisco/Oakland is considering adopting legislation that would give children as young as 5 lessons on gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender communities. Why would they do that? How would a kindergartner conceptualize gay sex? What is the point? By itself, maybe just a kook school board in California. Attach it to the hate crime legislation. They aren’t the only school district with “sensitivity” training regarding the LGBT community. These are children though. Would the average gay man or woman want this for their child? Would they want a stranger teaching their 5 year old about sexual orientation? Or sex at all for that matter?
My theory is that there is a pedophilia agenda in this country, and they are lurking behind gay rights issues, supporting those rights, and lobbying for legislation and school curriculums that are designed to shut the mouths of dissenting voices. Sooner or later though, the real agenda must reveal itself and the gay community is going to realize they were used as pawns for a diabolical agenda designed to make pedophila accepted and mainstream. An agenda that had nothing to do with them. They can’t push the agenda openly, so the gay marriage/rights issue is a perfect smoke screen for them. sexual orientation suggests gay, but the language is vague and the door is wide open for child molesting deivants to legally have protection with that kind of language as written in legislation. “Sensitivity” classes for small children that have no idea what they’re being sensitive to is yet another smoke screen.
Is associating homsexuality with pedophila misguided? A flat out lie? The examples cited in this article do nothing to dispel the perception. Any group, people, race or country must be aware what is being done in their name. It may not be what you think.
[...] View original here: Pedophiles Using Gay Marriage Issue As A Smokescreen? [...]
Too often, homosexuality is excused as a preference. Just because some prefer this unnatural sexual deviance does not make it right. If we stick with what nature intended, than nature dictates that a normal, natural relationship is between a man and a woman.
If we begin to excuse homosexuality as a preference, than having sex with 12 year old’s is a preference too.
Where exactly do we stop?
Some people would argue a biological factor, but the point of the article was that there is a pedophile agenda being advanced using poorly defined laws and school curriculum to do it.
The point of hate crime legislation is to distinguish between victims who are targeted for what they have, and those targeted for what they are; for example: is it worse for someone to beat you senseless in order to steal your wallet, or just because you’re a Christian? Do you honestly believe that the criminal motivated by hatred is deserving of the same treatement as the one interested in personal gain? Which do you think is more dangerous, and more at odds with this country’s founding principles? Now, supposing that you have a basic understanding of the basic tenents of our penal system, you understand that once a criminal has served his sentence, justice has been served; he will no longer be subjected to punishment for his offense. Instead of reaching for such a clearly desperate Ad Hominem attack (i.e., “that there is a pedophilia agenda in this country”), wouldn’t it make more sense to suppose that opposition to this language was based on an interest in protecting pedophiles from vigilante justice? I’m not suggesting that pedophiles don’t deserve to be tarred and feathered, merely that, depsite your obvious intelligence, your blinding hatred of this administration, liberalism in general, and homosexuals in particular has crippled your ability to reason clearly, and rendered you functionally retarded.
Lostcat: You’ve gone off on some tangents, so I’ll just comment on a few things. First, read the article. I said nothing derogatory towards gays. Nothing. To me beating someone “senseless” rises to the same level of severity regardless of the reason. Your penal system comment is another discussion, as is the issue of how I feel about the current administration.
Now there are a few things we actually agree on. I agree the senate suggested an interest in protecting pedophiles from vigilante justice by leaving specific language out of the hate crime bill. I also agree that they deserve a good tarring and feathering.
Finally, I’m not sure why you included your own ad hominem attack. I thought the article was pretty clear, but maybe not…