I have been engaged in dialogue with a writer in my blog regarding homosexuality and the companies supporting it and I welcomed his willingness to continue sharing his thoughts.
While he sent me several comments within a short period of time, and I am still trying to catch up,one thought stayed with me. The writer wrote that no one is trying to force me to do anything, I , respectfully disagree.
One good example is propostiton 8. Is violating the Constitution, the will of the people not judicial tyranny and oppression? Are they not dictating what we will do and will not do?
It's extremely serious: A clear majority of the voters in California voted in favor of Proposition 8, defining marriage along traditional one man/one woman lines, the amendment had passed.
The ACLU, Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Americans United (AU), and others aligned with them are arguing that the votes of the majority should be thrown out. If they're successful, this would be the most extreme case of judicial over-reach in our lifetime.When a judge is free to take away your vote ... when the judicial branch of the government grasps this kind of power from the People themselves, who voted in accordance with their constitution ...The implications are grave. Any court, any judge, will be free to over-reach in any case, on any issue - and your own vote, as a citizen in this "Republic", could easily become meaningless and in many instances has already.
Another example is the OIC, the organization of islamic conference. This organization is trying to make it a felony or even punishable by death to speak against Islam in America once again violating my right to free speech.
There was an orgaization during the Obama campaign that were trying to punish those who speak against him.
A group of Christians were asked to leave the Cairo district in San Francisco for praying.
A man was arrested for preaching at the liberty bell in Philadelphia.
Bibles were removed from school, prayer was banned from school, the ten commandments were removed.
Secular humanism replaced Christian doctrine in school, history, science and english has been re-written and "tolerance, diversity and inclusion" became a large part of the school cirriculum.
My son, two days ago , while learning about the presidents, was told that James Buchanan may have been a homosexual. They did not mention that he may have been a "Christian", nor did they have any proof on why they thought this.
John Freshwater was arrested for oppoing that his child was being taught about the acceptance of homosexuals in elementary school, which was against his own beliefs and a violation of his personal liberty.
There are gay pride events all across the country and children are urged to attend. We are "forced" to stay away from the public places in which these parades exist to not expose ourselves or our children to this type of behavior and to not be beaten while sharing our opposition. In many areas it is promoted and "accepted" to have gay sex in the public streets.
Why is it acceptable that they can oppose Christians but we cannot oppose the homosexuals behavior?
The reason I mention this is because it is important to understand the word "Liberty."
Liberty is the freedom of expression one has without imposing or violating others with respect to morality. Our foundidng fathers spoke often about the importance of morality and the importance of "personal liberty"
Heterosexuals do not have parades and commit vile sex acts in the streets, we would be arrested How can this be allowed whether you are hetero or homo? What do you suppose the reason for parading in this manner is for?
Forgive me if I am wrong here but it has to be to express their freedom of expression right? (The Constitution did not make allowances for homosexual behavior because it was considered immoral and aginst the law at that time). How is it that so many Constitutional lawyers missed this? Maybe it is about forcing us to accept who they are. I welcome some thoughts on why?
Would I have better luck if I forced and agenda on you or if I introduced it with respect? Aside from the fact that it is immoral, they continue to call us haters.
Who hates who when they become riotus to show their dissapproval of an amendment process that was voted on by the people who oppose their behavior, then try to convince our "pathetic judiciary"that it was unconstitutional and have them consider repealing the will of the people?
The Supreme court has one purpose, to interpret the Constitutionality of the case, not manipulate it, desecrate it, make a mockery of it disrespecting the American citizens who still respect it, honor it and pledge their lives to it and died for it. It would be better to remove the Constitution then to continue to disrespect everything our founding fathers, through Christ, has done for us in this great nation.
Those in this radical agenda are violating state, federal, constitutional , biblical and natural laws, without respect for the majority who are law abiding citizens. Illegal acts and those who violate the law have been punished until now, now they are rewarded and promoted.
Are we being "forced" to conform, Yes we are. We, as a nation, have become a pathetic, selfish, self-serving, vile, disrespectful, greedy people who have no regard for future generations and the proof is our willingness to destroy the family, children though abortion and allow homosexual behavior to reign over the traditional families snubbing one of God's most righteous gifts, the ability for the woman to bare a child creating the family that would replensh the Earth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment