Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Friday, October 31, 2008

Pro-Homosexual Candidate Scurries for Cover in Dist. 33

The Rapid City Journal is upset that an issue postcard went out about Dennis Finch, Democrat candidate for District 33 senate.

The pink postcard from a group from Hermosa called Family Matters features a pic of two homosexual men about to kiss and asks: "Does Democrat Candidate Dennis Finch support this?

Why, you might ask, would the Family Matters group believe Finch would support homosexual behavior? Because the pro-homosexual group "Equality South Dakota" or EqSD endorsed him and several other pro-homosexual candidates back in July.

In order to receive an endorsement and/or campaign contributions from EqSD, candidates had to fill out a survey from EqSD. And I can't imagine this pro-homosexual group would give an endorsement and/or financial contributions if they didn't like the answers they received.

Here are the questions EqSD asked on their survey:

1. Employment Discrimination: In South Dakota, it is legal to fire or refuse to hire someone just because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual, or transgender. More than 430 of the Fortune 500 companies have already adopted inclusive antidiscrimination policies and 74% of Americans support legislation that would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity by state and local governments. In concept, would you support such a bill?

2. Safe Schools
Studies show that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students face disproportionate levels of violence, harassment, and discrimination in public schools. A recent survey found that when these students reported harassment to school officials, it went unaddressed 73% of the time. Equality SD believes the legislature must send a clear message to school officials that every student has a right to a safe learning environment, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, religion or disability. In concept would you support legislation requiring school systems to adopt inclusive harassment and discrimination policies?

3. Relationship Recognition
Because same sex couples can legally be denied access to their partners in health care settings, such as hospital emergency room events, gays and lesbians have lost partners without entry to their deathbed or the ability to comfort their loved in their last hour. In concept, would you support legislation granting hospital visitation rights and similar protections that recognize gay relationships.

In case you're not familiar with how homosexual activists operate, they try to find causes they believe can generate sympathy, then craft the issue in such a way that no reasonable (and ignorant) person could oppose it.

After all, who could oppose giving a guy a job? Who could oppose efforts to keep kids from being beaten up? Who could oppose somebody visiting someone they care about in the hospital?

The only thing is, these are merely vehicles to advance their agenda of homosexual legitimization.

Unless a homosexual is flaunting their sexual behavior openly, an employer probably isn't going to even know they're a homosexual. Many business owners these days wouldn't care anyway. And for those employers who try to run a Christian business that is part of the testimony of their faith, they should not be forced to compromise their testimony with an employee who does openly thumb their nose at their deeply held religious values.

As for safe schools, how about school officials protect every student from bullying? If they aren't, they should be. And if they are, why do homosexuals need special protection? The "safe schools" initiative is nothing but a vehicle to force legitimization and acceptance of homosexuality onto young, impressionable minds.

And as for visitation rights, homosexuals can take care of this with a power of attorney if they'd like. But their relationship has done nothing positive for society to merit the special considerations given to legitimate marital and family relationships.

Marriages produce children, the next generation to continue a society; homosexual couples can never produce children, even if all their reproductive organs are working correctly.

Married families also provide another valuable service to society: a safe, stable and healthy environment in which to nurture and raise children. Homosexuals have higher rates of AIDS, other STDs, hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse and suicide. Such an unhealthy and unstable environment is no place to situate a child, even by adoption. Homosexuals couples also have much higher rates of domestic violence--another situation you wouldn't want to drop a child into. Homosexuals are also much more promiscuous than heterosexuals; even those who claim to be "monogamous" in reality often involve outside sexual partners. And why would we want to teach a child from his home environment that one sex or the other is unnecessary or undesirable?

No, unlike married couples, homosexual couples provide no legitimate benefit to society. There is no logical reason to give homosexual behavior or homosexual relationships any special recognition or consideration.

I have to wonder why Finch is so upset over this, though. (1) It is an established fact that EqSD endorsed him; (2) as I said above, I can't imagine they would endorse him without a solid reason to believe he supports their agenda, and (3) Finch did not deny supporting EqSD, or the behavior exhibited on the mailer.

Finch did say in the article that he "does not support either of the policy goals alleged in the mailing." Well, "either" implies two objects, but there were three goals stated on the mailer, and one of those was specifically included in the survey EqSD sent out.

Does he really expect us to believe EqSD would endorse him if he didn't support at least part of their agenda?

If Finch didn't want people to know he supports the homosexual agenda, maybe he shouldn't have indicated he did with the EqSD survey.

A couple of the pro-homosexual blogs in South Dakota have indicated they are upset by the mailer. If EqSD didn't want people to know Finch supports the homosexual agenda, maybe they shouldn't have publicly endorsed him.

What are they so ashamed of? If they want to push acceptance of homosexual behavior on our society, force Christian businesses to hire people who openly oppose their values, push pro-homosexual indoctrination on our schools, and undermine marriage and the family, do they expect to be left alone to undermine our culture unhindered and in secret?

Sorry, some of us aren't willing to bare our necks and and allow homosexual activists to butcher the family and normal human sexuality. We're not going to let them tear to shreds the moral fabric of our society.

Homosexual activists like to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to have their sexual practices celebrated while undermining marriage and family, and if you say anything in opposition to their assault, then you're a "hater," a "homophobe" and "mean spirited."

Sorry, some of us aren't stupid enough to fall for that intimidation ploy, either.

Shouldn't the voters of District 33 know what they're supporting when they vote for a candidate? If Finch supports two men kissing, then voters are supporting the same thing if they vote for him.

The folks at Family Matters have done a public service. Finch didn't help the voters of District 33 get informed; he ignored the South Dakota Family Policy Council voter guide that most of his fellow Dist. 33 candidates responded to (click image to enlarge).


The voter guide specifically asked two questions about the homosexual agenda:

8. Support extending to homosexual couples the legal benefits, rights,and privileges that the state currently provides to married couples?

9. Support legislation that prohibits adoption of children to homosexual parents?

It seems that while Finch could find time to respond to a survey from a pro-homosexual group, he couldn't find time to respond to a pro-family group concerned about things like marriage, family, children, the life of unborn children, Second Amendment rights, transparency in government, sex ed and public education.

His opponent, Dennis Schmidt, didn't seem to have anything to hide; Schmidt answered every question.

Shouldn't candidates running for office to represent the people of their district be up-front about what they support and what they are likely to support if they are elected?

It sounds to me from Finch's scurrying and angst over this post card that he's worried people might find out what he really supports.


2 comments:

Barry G. Wick said...

"No, unlike married couples, homosexual couples provide no legitimate benefit to society." Great, Bob. Thanks for confirming my thoughts about the future of homosexuals in America. Based upon your opinion...we shouldn't have to pay any taxes since you don't want government to supply us with any rights. Fine. No rights, no taxes.
You aren't willing to allow us to work? Fine. What work we can find is now tax free. No service to the military. No medical services to straight people. No help to straight people whatsoever.
We won't teach your litters...we won't do anything for you...fix your hair or your food....allow you to hear our music, see our art...we won't design your buildings...build your buildings...anything. We'll create a completely separate society...and for all that you breeding folk will still produce homosexual children. The best world I can think of.

Bob Ellis said...

Barry, did I say any of what you said? Of course I didn't.

You just don't get it...because you don't want to get it.

 
Clicky Web Analytics