Not only are homosexual activists and their "useful idiots" in congress working very hard to legitimize homosexual behavior, according to the Washington Post they want you to fork over your hard-earned tax dollars to pay for it.
The Post says Senator Joe Lieberman is sponsoring legislation to extend employee benefits to homosexual couples who work for the government (i.e. work for you):
"This legislation would provide employee benefit programs to the same-sex domestic partners of federal employees," Lieberman said yesterday at a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing. "They would be eligible to participate in health benefits, long-term care, family and medical leave, federal retirement benefits, and all other benefits for which married employees and their spouses are eligible."
In other words, this legislation would authorize taxpayer funds to pay for the health care of couples who are not married and can never be married because they are of the same sex.
Not only will this boost the taxpayer bill for health care (homosexuals have much higher rates of AIDS, STDs, hepatitis, substance abuse, depression, anxiety, mental health issues, suicide and domestic violence), but will further lend an illegitimate air of normalcy to homosexual behavior.
Here's another gem:
Opposite-sex partners are not included because they have the option to marry.
Homosexuals also have the option to marry; they simply choose not to find an opposite-sex partner which is required to constitute a marriage.
We must return Republicans to power in congress and keep them there in the White House. For all their failings, they are nowhere near as bad as Democrats.
Taxpayer subsidization of an immoral and unhealthy lifestyle is unconscionable.
19 comments:
Well, here we go again...no...homosexuals pay for benefits and don't get them. That's the discrimination of government. You pay for your heterosexual benefits and we pay for our homosexual benerfits. That how it works...now, you're just using ours.
We'd like to have them finally.
And I wanted you to know that homosexuals have been conspiring for months to cause the crash of the economy...we're all just so rich and receiving those golden parachutes from everybody that we decided as a group to drop a anvil on the economy. So now you can blame us for that as well. And by the way...AIG stands for All Is Gay. Now you know the truth. Yep, there's a queer who lives outside of Rapid City who has his finger on the pulse of the economy...and he just pulled it out of the dyke...er dike.
Barry, homosexuals are entitled to employment benefits for themselves...but not for their homosexual partners. Such benefits for additional family members are for just that: family members.
Government should not be in the business of legitimizing an immoral, unhealthy and unnatural sexual behavior under any circumstances, and certainly not using taxpayer resources to do it.
The law says homosexuals are entitled to do each other, but they're not entitled to society's approval or the taxpayer's money.
"The law says homosexuals are entitled to do each other, but they're not entitled to society's approval or the taxpayer's money."
There you go again, making it all about sex. And you'll probably tell me it's because that's all you're forced to see. Well, if you take the time to get to know a gay couple, you'll learn that sex is just as important and, at other times, just as trivial, to us as it is to you and your wife.
And trust me, I wouldn't want my tax money going to you and your wife if all you did was have sex. That's just nasty.
Whether it's one time or a million times, homosexual sex is always wrong, Barry. So "all about" is irrelevant.
It's truly sad that normal, beautiful sexual relations with ones spouse is so repugnant to you, Barry. I hope someday before it's too late God will be able to get the blinders off you and you can see the truth.
If you ever do, you'll find it to be wonderful beyond your imagination.
First of all, my name's not Barry.
Second, I've already had "normal, beautiful sexual relations" with a woman, and it was not wonderful beyond my imagination.
Third, I am not repulsed by the sexual practices of all heterosexuals. Just you and your wife.
Bob, Bob, Bob,
You just don't understand. Repugnant? What you call normal or heterosexual relationships repugnant to me? No, they are not...nor are they to many of gay people. Your assumptions are beyond understanding and it shows how little you go out of your way to know any gay people. I was married. I have three children and almost 5 grandchildren.
I've had what you call normal relations with a woman...but there was something deep inside me that said to me...and said to me my whole life...that I was more attracted to men than women. When I finally made the decision to stop denying that side of me it was a complete revelation to me. I'd spent years in psychiatric and psychotherapy treatment...years on my knees praying to GOD. I went to church...and conservative churches as well. You don't know me and you don't know most gay people...this isn't a choice. Being gay isn't a choice...it's a realization that God created me as I am...without guilt and without shame. At 56, I don't have relations with anybody and haven't for 10 years...and I don't care to. I'm passed that phase of my life. To believe that all I need is sex with a woman and I'll find it wonderful and make a change "the change" is a denial on your part...and naive. After my marriage, I ended up in the gay ghetto of Chicago...I have several relationships with men...neither successful for a number of reasons...but then not every heterosexual relationship succeeds either. I watched people die of AIDS...I've cared for them...assisted them...was their power of attorney...was their executor of their estate. Much pain...and much reward. But to think I have blinders on?...and that I don't see the truth? Or that I can't see you deny that there are many kinds of families instead of just one kind? There are many books written about homosexuality...one of the most studied human experiences. Sarah Pennington, a very conservative Christian, has written extensively on the subject...and I suggest you read some books by her. But then I doubt you would. The experiences of my life only show me how people like you, Bob, discriminate and encourage hatred of and discrimination against gay and lesbian people. I know I can't change you...but sometime you're going to have to grow up and realize that you can't change gay people...because God created us just as much as he created you.
You have no idea how strong gay people are...true, some aren't...but those who go through the coming-out process and have been through the AIDS crisis are a lot stronger than you them credit for being. So you can fight us and be separate citizens or you can help us as we help you solve this nation's problems. We have alot more in common than you think.
Gay people aren't the problem you make us to be. As a percentage of the number of stories you write about us you'd think we were responsible for at least half of the nation's problems...340 plus articles you've written...mostly negative...if not all. We all have bigger problems to solve like the overspending of what was suppose to be a conservative White House...a wrong war...horrendous greed and corruption. Gay people getting married isn't a problem for you...it's more of a challenge for them and it has nothing to do with conservative Christians. If your family fails, it's not our fault. If our families fail it's our fault and nobody elses.
Having the temptation is not a choice, but giving in to it most certainly is.
Having struggled with the temptation to drink and with other sins, I sympathize with your struggle. But the decision of whether to resist or give in is totally yours.
I'm glad to year you haven't been having homosexual relations in a long time; it's far safer this way.
It's sad, however, that you refuse to see that God can and does deliver people from this sin and has been doing so for thousands of years. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Paul talks about how drunks, thieves, swindlers...and yes, homosexuals had been delivered from their sin.
As for the reason I write so often about homosexuality, that's because it's in the headlines every single day. Every single day there is some new assault on normality, on morality, on the family, on children, on marriage, on religious freedom. There are few areas of public policy where the health of our people and our society are under such attack--and there's a good argument that this one is THE greatest area of attack.
And no, I don't think there's a single piece I've written that's positive about homosexuality. There's a reason why: there IS nothing positive about homosexuality. What's positive about alcoholism? What's positive about drug abuse? What's positive about prostitution? What's positive about incest? There isn't anything positive about any of these things, including homosexuality.
I agree that there are many problems our nation faces where we could be expending our time and energy. If homosexual activist would stop attacking morality, marriage and the family, we could redirect that time and energy to those problems.
There really is no reason we should have to expend so many resources to combat something that is so plainly and obviously unnatural, immoral, unhealthy, and harmful to the stability of our society. Yet as long as they remain under attack, we have no choice but to fight to defend them.
If for no other reason than to help our country deal with these problems, why not work to get homosexual activists to stop attacking the moral fiber of our country and let us deal with these other problems?
Bob,
You're more obsessed with homosexuality than I am now. The reason I don't have a relationship was that I did find a man I loved deeply...that relationship fell through and every relationship I tried after that fell through because I still loved him. That wasn't temptation, as you call it. I was in love...and you won't acknowledge that there is love in the gay community. In your mind it's just sex...just sinful temptation...and the book you refer to was written 1500-3500 years ago before the scientific method of study of human relations, before man could toss away the mythologies of the past.
Much of the turmoil we're now experiencing in human relationships, wars and conflict, is based on the mythologies and deep beliefs that come down from centuries before we were alive. We find ourselves fighting wars we didn't start. There's simply no logic in keeping them going...yet, they're still going day after day.
No, I loved another man and because I can't rekindle that love there just isn't any sense in my trying....and yet, I know I still love him. I would still be attracted to him even though I have seen him in years and years.
You say homosexual activists are responsible for attacking morality, marriage and the family. If that happened you'd suddenly stop attacking gay people? That wouldn't stop you, would it? No. And as far as the stability of our society, I think the current financial crises are more threatening...the wars...the lack of respect for the United States across the world because we attacked another country without provocation...well, those are far more hurtful to our society than a couple of queers in love. We've found that folks like you will always find a way to attack us no matter what we do. We could be the most creative, upstanding citizens and you'd still encourage others to attack us and degrade us.
Everything is our fault and you don't accept responsibility for anything. So it's obvious you'd rather blame the victim than accept any responsibility for violence and discrimination against gays and lesbians that occurs every day in our nation. One only has to look at FBI hate crimes statistics to see the real story.
What you call "obviously unnatural, immoral, unhealthy, and harmful" isn't to us. Many gays are in healthy and happy relationships. You don't see them preferring to attack them with the same vitriol as the people who rut in the park or the alleys. Not all gays are activists. Most prefer not to be. I was for awhile and realized it was impossible to herd cats...because trying to lead the gay community anywhere feels like that...especially in South Dakota were there are virtually no community activities and what there is is extremely limited. Comparing homosexuality to drinking or drug abuse...incest...other ills...well, there is no basis other than what you've been told by others....others who aren't accepted by major national psychiatric and sociologic organizations. And since your deeply held religious belief is founded on roughly 7 Biblical passages...nothing else written will satisfy you...however, I suspect you don't own slaves. Do you eat pork? If you do...hot dogs or bacon cheeseburgers? then you're just as much an abomination in the eyes of GOD as I am. And yet, I don't spend any time blasting people because they eat pork....though PETA would like me to, I suppose. I won't. No, nothing will change with this discussion. My sexual orientation will still be homosexual. And even though that will be the case, I won't be able to love the person I do love because he's so many years and miles away now. You just think that's safe...because in your opinion all gay people get AIDS or all gay people want AIDS or something else to make them sick. And if we didn't exist, you could solve the problems that aren't be resolved now. Well, many of us come from families just like yours. Somewhere in America right now a boy or girl are realizing they love someone of the same sex, but they live in a household where the father or mother or both hate homosexuality...or their household is involved in religious activities. They feel trapped and alone. And they can't talk about it. If they do, they'll be kicked out of their families like so many I've met over the years. Instead of trying to understand GOD's gifts of love in all its variations, religious families accept rigidities that will eventually lead to their breakup and the loss of their children. It's been said that the likelihood of a child turning to drugs and alcohol who has been kicked out of a religious family is extremely high. What seems like a GOD directed decision to save the family becomes a GOD-obsessed destruction of the family. You don't have us to blame for those problems...you only have yourselves to blame. From the beginning of this conversation, I knew I couldn't get any agreement from you...or any change in your opinion. If found that out from many experiences before. It's been pointless of me to engage you or others in this manner. But I felt I had to make these statements whether any of them made it through or not. My best wishes to you and your family. I just learned that daughter number one is going to have twins...that will make 6 grandchildren I'll have. And I'll love everyone of them no matter who or what they are....because I've learned that the greatest gift is love...and not what one does with the parts we've been given.
Well Bob, I don't expect you to think anything with the word "Science" in the title is credible, but, what the hell, I'll try.
Would seem that folks like you are primarily to blame for the sexual health problems of many homosexuals. :
Press release from ScienceDaily.com
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080917145418.htm
"ScienceDaily (Sep. 20, 2008) — Researchers at the University of Minnesota have published a study showing that the degree of internalized homonegativity (negative attitude towards homosexuality) among homosexual men is what predicts poor mental and sexual health – not the act of being homosexual.
As part of attending an HIV prevention seminar, 422 Midwestern gay and bisexual men completed surveys assessing their degree of homosexuality, their degree of positive or negative attitudes towards homosexuality, and a range of mental and sexual health variables.
In all cases, internalized homonegativity, not being homosexual, predicted poorer mental health (particularly increased depression) and worse sexual health. The study appears in the September issue of the Journal of Homosexuality.
The study helps inform the debate of whether or not being homosexual is healthy, said Simon Rosser, Ph.D., a researcher in the School of Public Health and principal investigator of the study.
"This study is a missing link in our understanding of the relationship between sexuality and health," he said. "It provides new evidence that negative attitudes towards homosexuality, not homosexuality itself, are associated with both poorer mental and sexual health outcomes seen in sexual minorities. Conversely, positive attitudes towards homosexuality are associated with better mental and sexual health."
For more than 150 years, scholars and educators have debated whether homosexuality is an objective disorder or whether societal prejudice, not homosexuality, leads to the elevated rates of depression, drug use, and HIV/STD epidemics seen in studies of gay men, Rosser said. This study tested both theories.
"Given the debates in many religious denominations about homosexuality, and in society about homosexuals and civil rights, it's also timely," Rosser said. "In particular, the old advice to gay men to fight, deny, or minimize their homosexuality likely only increases depression, greater isolation, and poorer sexual health. In short, viewing homosexuality as a disorder is not only inaccurate, it may be harmful as well."
This research, which is part of the HIV prevention program – funded by the Minnesota Department of Health – has also been shown to be effective in reducing unsafe sex."
So there ya go bob. Wanna stop all the problems you lament so much about the gay community, stop persecuting them and watch how quickly those problems dry up! Sadly, it would have to be more than just you, everyone would have to stop. But hey, a guy can dream.
I'm sure I'll be waiting with baited breath for your attempts to discredit and ridicule this research.
Congratulations on your upcoming grandchildren, Barry! I'm happy for you.
It would be great if you would give them a legacy of moral strength and love for God. I'll continue praying that you can find it for yourself so you have it to pass on to your posterity.
Anonymous, my ability to both discredit and ridicule this simplistic, transparent and idiotic "study" come--excuse the pun--ridiculously easily.
If this is true, then the answer to my problems when I was a drunk was to...just feel better about being a drunk, and all would have been alright. Yeah, that's the ticket.
When people are depressed, they just need to feel better about...being depressed.
When people are stealing from their employer, they just need to...feel better about stealing from their employer.
In other words, any negative consequences and anxiety that comes from performing an immoral behavior can be remedied by just feeling better about it. In other words, tell yourself it's morally correct and all will be well.
When you do something wrong, don't fell guilty: celebrate it!
Only a homosexual activist or a homosexual apologist could have come up with this kind of weak drivel.
It probably never occurred to this so-called researcher (or if it did, it was quickly chucked down a hole in favor of "celebrating" idiotic "research") that perhaps the reason people feel bad and get depressed when the commit immoral act is...because that's supposed to happen?!
God built a conscience into us to warn us of spiritual and ethical danger--just as we have pain receptors in our skin to warn us of physical danger--so that we would react to it and move away from the source of the harm.
When we drink, when we do drugs, when we are promiscuous, when we gamble habitually, when we make a lifestyle of stealing and cheating...when we make it a practice of doing anything immoral and harmful to our conscience, that conscience recoils from that, and manifests itself with a sense of guilt. If that guilt is ignored, it becomes a pattern that builds into anxiety. If it continues, it builds into depression, and can eventually lead to suicide to escape.
It sounds like a bratty 5-year old came up with this nonsense.
Better to listen to the conscience--before it is too seared to help--and move away from the immoral behavior.
Ah, but Bob, you answer me while working from the assumption that everyone believes being gay is immoral. This is not the case. And I also have to wonder, what, specifically, is immoral about being gay? Please do not refer to any religious texts, verses, or faith based organizations in your answer. I would like scientific, logical, factual reasons as to why being gay is immoral. You compare it to drug use, stealing, and cheating, which clearly harm people other than just the one committing the act. Who is harmed when someone is gay? And please, don't try and say "Society." because thats just a bit too vague.
Anonymous, you assume incorrectly that I assume everyone believes homosexual is immoral.
I am very aware that not everyone accepts this, just as not everyone accepts that child molestation, prostitution and many other things are immoral; the fact that some do not accept that reality does not change the reality.
I am amused at your request for extra-Biblical reasons why homosexual behavior is immoral and wrong; I give those pretty much every time I address this subject--in fact, this post and the subsequent comments are full of it.
But in an attempt to lead you to water one more time, here we go.
Homosexual behavior is harmful to the individual who perpetrates it because it is a misuse of their body which can frequently result in physical injury. Also, given the much higher rate of AIDS and STDs common in the homosexual community, the individual is exposing themselves to greater and unnecessary health risk--which, also, given the highly collectivized nature of our health care system, probably steals from another person because their hard-earned dollars probably in some way or another will go to pay for the reckless behavior of another. Homosexuals also risk a greater chance of experiencing depression, substance abuse and suicide--thus adding to the chance of harm to themselves...and the additional health care cost to others. What's more, when they engage in these activities with others, they also put the other participant at risk from these same hazards. And in advocating them, they advocate harm on others. And in advocating the societal normalization of this unhealthy behavior, more people may succumb to it than otherwise would if we were warning people away from this behavior. And as a result of societal normalization, more children may and likely will be adopted by homosexual couples, exposing more children to the chaos of the average homosexual relationship (much higher rates of promiscuity, much lower rates of monogamy, much higher rates of domestic violence), and don't forget the higher risk of disease, depression, substance abuse and suicide.
So there. While I might be able to expect appreciation for such an informed and enlightened explanation, I have enough experience with homosexual activists and homosexual apologists to know that, despite these overwhelming reasons--in addition to the clear moral reasons--you will almost certainly find some way to justify a continued delusion that homosexual behavior is normal, natural and healthy.
But all I can do is to try, and to present the information. Whether the horse drinks or not is up to the horse.
I see you haven't bothered to post my response. I guess that confirms what I thought. You're so set in your own views, that you not only refuse to consider any that go against your own, but won't even allow them to be spoken in your comments section. Sad, but not surprising. Enjoy your censorship! Coward.
I have no idea who you are, Anonymous. When you don't give a name, I have no way of knowing for sure, but since the only comments I don't post are ones with profanity or ones that are totally asinine and off the wall, I'd venture that yours which aren't showing up met one or both of those criteria. I'm not concerned that you would have anything contrary to say that might possibly justify the irresponsible behavior of the those proposing this, or those engaging in homosexual behavior; it's just a matter of appropriateness and applicability when comments get rejected.
By the way, censorship is something the government does, not private individuals.
Actually Bob, I know exactly what I wrote. There was one word that might have been considered profane, and it was deliberately misspelled to avoid profanity. This was at the end of several paragraphs of information. You sir, simply did not like what I had to say, and therefore would not post it. You can deny this all you wish, but you have shown your true colours.
As for my being anonymous, that is my choice and right, and I believe, something you can choose to allow or disallow on your blog. I do not have any desire to give you any of my personal information, lest you use it against me. You do not strike me as particularly trustworthy, and since there was no requirement to give my information, I elected not to give it.
Censorship is not only done by the "government". Anyone who, in their own media outlet, decides to edit or disallow others from stating their opinions because they happen to disagree, is censorship. It matters not whether you are a private individual or not. I wrote my opinion, you disliked it, did not allow it to be seen, you censored it. Plain and simple.
As I said, you've shown your true colours. You are nothing but a bigot, and homophobe. You would prefer to classify an entire group of people, based on what you perceive we are by watching a minority group of us at a Pride Parade, rather than look at real research. Very sad.
Its strange, for your own sake, I hope one of your children comes out of the closet and shows you what gay people are really like.
Though for your childs sake, I hope he/she never has to worry about informing their bigot of a father that they're gay. Because that's simply too much of a horror to wish on anyone.
Ah, I think I vaguely remember the comment; if my memory serves, it was too close--even with your creative misspelling--to profanity for my comfort level.
If you want to define telling the truth about an unnatural, immoral and unhealthy practice--as I would about drug use, alcoholism, gambling, adultery or sin--as "bigotry," then I suppose there's nothing to stop you. I suppose that's one of the few ways you have to defend yourself from the truth and keep doing something your conscience probably still tells you is wrong.
But you, Anonymous, have indeed shown your true colors in wishing on my children a practice that would be extremely destructive to their bodies and their souls. Few rational people would wish harm on another person, much less their children.
You might want to think about the heart that spawned that kind of hatred.
You tell yourself anything that helps you sleep at night there Bob-o. Most folks who read this rag of yours know exactly what you truly stand for. So I'm really not concerned with your opinions of me.
Nor am I concerned about what you or anyone else thinks of me (though I am concerned when people embrace a destructive lie--but if they've been to this page, at least they've been warned).
I, at least, have enough guts to put my name behind what I say, unlike some folks.
Post a Comment