Oh come on! That’s ridiculous. Absolutely, Curch charities should receive an exception to this legislation but to move forward into conspiracy theory is just paranoid.
It’s not a theory. Back when homosexuals started “coming out” they told us that all they wanted was “to be left alone”. Shortly after “coming out” we got the Rainbow Curriculum [
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_Avengers#First_Action:_Rainbow_Curriculum]](
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_Avengers#First_Action:_Rainbow_Curriculum]) rammed down our throats. Then the Boy Scouts had to fight a quarter-century long battle with homosexuals to keep them out of leadership positions
bsalegal.org/litigation-222.asp. This battle is not over, BTW, because their counsel [the ACLU] didn’t take to losing very well. The organizers of the Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade had to fight a legal battle to exclude them from their parade. A Methodist * Church owned a park and was sued when it refused to rent it to a homosexual couple who wanted to “get married”. A photographer was sued and had to pay $5,000 because she refused to photograph a homosexual couple’s “wedding”. A couple of years ago, a woman in Canada married
herself [it’s legal there] and even went on a honeymoon to “get in touch with herself” as she put it. *
So, we went from just being left alone to fighting off gay “marriage” and it will not be the end of their demands; they have told us so themselves.Beyond Gay Marriage"
Aug 2, 2006
Robert P. George
For years, critics of the idea of same-sex “marriage” have made the point that accepting the proposition that two persons of the same sex can marry each other entails abandoning any principled basis for understanding marriage as the union of two and only two persons. So far as I am aware, our opponents have made no serious effort to answer or rebut this point. Their strategy has been to dismiss it as a mere slippery-slope argument (although the truth is that it is a more fundamental type of argument than that) and to accuse us of engaging in “scare tactics.” Some have even denounced us as “bigots” for suggesting that same-sex relations are on a par with polygamy and “polyamory”—the union of three or more persons in a sexual partnership.
That was then; this is now.
A group of self-identified “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers” has released a statement
beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html* explicitly endorsing “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.” Got that? More than one conjugal partner.
firstthings.com/on_the_square_entry.php?year=2006&month=8&title_link=robert-george-beyond-gay-marri .
“Finally, ‘Straight Talk’ From the Homosexual Agenda”
by Austin Nimocks
Oct. 20, 2008
We all love and appreciate honesty, and it’s finally coming from the most unlikely of sources—the homosexual agenda. No matter what side of the issues of homosexual behavior you may find yourself supporting, a standing ovation is appropriate.
John Corvino, I salute you.
You see, back in August, my jaw hit the floor when I read a column
365gay.com/features/082908-corvino Corvino wrote that was breathtakingly honest. You see, for many years, the homosexual agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,” and “fairness.” Yet Corvino provided a breath of fresh air, telling us what those who engage in homosexual behavior really want: moral approval.
townhall.com/columnists/AustinNimocks/2008/10/20/finally,_straight_talk_from_the_homosexual_agenda
So we went from “being left alone” to a demand for moral approval of debauchery. Now methinks either you were born yesterday or are hopelessly naïve.*
**