This video is a news report about a couple of lesbians who wanted to open a campground called "Camp Lickalotta." Now that outraged neighbors are putting the kibosh on their obscene plans, they're playing the victim card, always a favorite for homosexual activists.
What if someone had wanted to start a campground for unmarried heterosexuals and called it "Camp Screwalott?" Or if someone wanted to start a campground for bestiality called "Camp Horsealott?" Or if someone wanted to start a campground for adulterers called "Camp Cheatalott?"
I dare say neighbors would have had a problem with that, too. Why? Because it is flaunting sexual immorality, and as neighbors, they are automatically associated with it.
Should we expect unnatural lesbian sexual activities to be any different?
If they had just kept quiet about their purpose, most people probably wouldn't have had any serious objections.
But that's not really what the homosexual agenda is about. It's about bringing sexual perversion out in the open, glorifying it, and forcing everyone else to accept it. If homosexual activists can't do that, it's not nearly as exciting, not nearly as much fun, not nearly as prideful.
I'm thinking that despite decades of erosion of moral values in America, there may still be enough sense of normality and what's right that homosexuals, with this stuff and stuff like the transsexual bathrooms, are on the verge of overplaying their hand.
Featured Article
Monday, March 10, 2008
Neighbors Put Kibosh on Obscene Lesbian Campground
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
This is another example of aggressive, in-your-face homosexual activism. It was never about starting a camp for people to enjoy the usual amenities of the outdoors. It is all about fomenting a controversy to ingratiate a perverted minority and inflame the majority. To claim discrimination and victim status is, no doubt, part of the plan.
It is gratifying that their are still communities that will not tolerate such hatefulness.
Nice comments!
I suppose we can kick every minority out of every situation when they don't fit the 'percieved' majoritie's veiw.
Are we ready to keep kids from going to ultra-conservative religious camps...They are hateful institutions, and breed intolerance in society. How much different are these schools from a school for religious zealots in Afganistan?...Well aside from the language spoken and the name of the prophet, not much varies.
Be kind to your neighbors, because they are different from you. You can learn from them, and they from you.
Peace to all mankind.
Kj
KJP, I assume by the term "minority" you're referring to a group which is, based on innate physical characteristics (i.e. skin color or sex) in the minority.
In which case, no.
If you're talking about a group of people whose group identity is based on a sexual behavior, and that behavior is unnatural and involves obscenity, then yes, they have no right to assault the morality and innocence of the community. Common sense not only tells us so, but court decision has determined that communities have the right to define obscenity based on community standards. And a campground named after a female homosexual practice meets most reasonable people's definition of obscene.
Bob, so what you are saying that if they change the name to something that isn't considered "obscene" then it would be fine by you for the camp site to go ahead?
And who exactly are you to judge that their behaviour is "unnatural"?
No Cathii, it would make it less overtly obscene, but it still wouldn't be okay with me.
You can look at nature and the biological function of sexuality to easily determine that two women having sex or two men having sex isn't natural. The primary function of sex is reproduction, and none is possible with two men or two women. A secondary function of human sexuality is physical and emotional oneness; two men or two women lack the proper combination of components to make that happen. It's like trying to put together plumbing with two male parts or two female parts; you might be able to glue or weld them together, but the combination wouldn't be stable and it wouldn't be a natural joining.
As for morality, I'm no one in and of myself to judge whether homosexual behavior is immoral. But God created human beings and established the design for human sexuality, and he established it as one man and one woman for life. And he made it very clear that for two men or two women to express sexuality together was abhorrent to Him; it turns His design for human sexuality upside down.
Bob,
I'd just like to point out that anything human beings do, say, think or produce, is a product of Nature and is by definition "Natural". This includes plastic shopping bags, steel skyscrapers, lesbian antics and even your words on this screen, Bob.
And so the "unnatural" argument holds no weight. Bonobo monkeys regularly engage in homosexual behaviour - is that unnatural too? Where is the What Is Natural guidebook of hard facts and irrefutable truths where I can look this up?
Oh now I see.. it's The Christian Bible. The arbiter of all morality in your totalitarianist, absolutist worldview.
Jesus hates your hate, Bob. What is it about compassion, understanding and tolerance that many Christians find so hard to accept? :(
You are incorrect in you're understanding of what "natural" means, jodm.
Natural means according to nature, according to the intended purpose and function of an organism.
It is clear from nature what the penis, vagina and anus are intended for. When they are used in a way for which they were clearly not intended, that is unnatural.
And if Jesus hates my hate, He must hate His own hate. Jesus is the Word, and he is God. Therefore He is responsible for the Old Testament writings that outline the plan for human sexuality as between one man and one woman for life, and which condemn homosexuality. He is also responsible for the New Testament affirmation of the purpose and proper expression of human sexuality, and the reiterated condemnation of homosexuality.
And it isn't God's hate behind his expressed purpose for human sexuality as being between a man and a woman, nor his condemnation of homosexuality. It is his love, because he knows what's best for us, what's most health from a physical, emotional and spiritual perspective. The fact that homosexuals experience far greater rates of STDs, AIDS, other diseases and injuries, depression, anxiety, substance abuse and suicide are further evidence that their activities run contrary to nature.
God is not mocked; when we violate his design, there is an inherent price. That's why he warns us away from such behavior; he loves us to much to allow us to blindly wander into such suffering.
"The fact that homosexuals experience far greater rates of STDs, AIDS, other diseases and injuries, depression, anxiety, substance abuse and suicide are further evidence that their activities run contrary to nature".
Well Bob, that's quite the statement. Since you are such an expert on these topics I would like to know where you got your statistics from so I can share them with our research team. As far as we know they hold no scientific validity.
We do not want the general public to be misinformed or mislead.
In my opinion, to outwardly blame one community of persons for such horrible diseases and misfortune is just plain ignorance.
I am also very curious on how you know so much about homosexual intimate practices, Theology, Scientific Statistics, Psychology, and the heart of God. You must be a genius or you just pulled all of this out of your anus and in your own words "that is just not natural".
Thank you Bob for opening my eyes and allowing me to judge hate and ignorance for myself.
"The fact that homosexuals experience far greater rates of STDs, AIDS, other diseases and injuries, depression, anxiety, substance abuse and suicide are further evidence that their activities run contrary to nature".
Well Bob, that's quite the statement. Since you are such an expert on these topics I would like to know where you got your statistics from so I can share them with our research team. As far as we know they hold no scientific validity.
We do not want the general public to be misinformed or mislead.
In my opinion, to outwardly blame one community of persons for such horrible diseases and misfortune is just plain ignorance.
I am also very curious on how you know so much about homosexual intimate practices, Theology, Scientific Statistics, Psychology, and the heart of God. You must be a genius or you just pulled all of this out of your anus and in your own words "that is just not natural".
Thank you Bob for opening my eyes and allowing me to judge hate and ignorance for myself.
Not Bob, those statistics and the sources for them are available in several posts on this blog dealing with homosexuality and health. They're also available in many places on the internet, and I have no knowledge of any of them being invalidated--only disliked by homosexuals who would rather do something clearly not intended for their sexual organs, without paying any consequences.
Some of those statistics come from the CDC,by the way. Surely you wouldn't accuse them of having an anti-homosexual agenda.
The name doesn't sit well with me either but I think maybe that's my problem. I think Americans are really too uptight about sex. I think they named it that for two reasons, one to entice the lesbians to come to the festival, and two just because it was humorous and they thought other people would think the name was funny.
That being said, I'd be embarressed to tell somebody if I was going to be there because of the name.
It's just private, gay or straight, I wouldn't go to a festival called Camp Screwalot either.
I definitely don't think it's immoral, just embarressing. Don't like that type of humor.
But, I support others who disagree and think the name's funny.
That's why I say I think it's probably my problem that the name bothers me.
The idea of the gay festival happening though I think is a good thing and is all in the spirit of people just enjoying themselves.
But then, I'm not religious either.
Im a lesbian can you tell me whatis un natural about me?
In nature there are lots of examples of homosexual behaviour.
Equally i dont follow a social political philosophy im not an anacists i dont think we should remove gender binaries and all live in a flower power world I believe in centre poltics and in the Uk you may say Centre right i vote conservative. I simply happen to be attracted to other woman i want a family a career a home a normal lifestyle visiting nice restaurants bars trips to the country all of which I hope to achieve by qualifying as a barrister (lawyer) here.
I disagree with the way the LGBT movement has gone towards promoting this social poltical stance which we are told we should all agree to I dont. I also dont agree with the over use of sex as a glamourisation and often I feel it is used to shock and to be as loud as possible in a warp view that this will actualy help integration and education with society as a whole. Why should we promote and bounce about sexual terms any more so than my hetrosexual friends. In fact I believe sex is something most inimately shared between two people who are indeed in love I was with my partner for 5 years untill november she is the only person I have slept with and i was incredably in love with her. Equally I am upset to find out (shes bi) that she in fact during the relasionship had 5 affairs with 5 men which hurt me deeply where as she seemed to think it was just sex and couldnt explain why she slept with these men but decided to stay with me. This has left me feeling a little distraut and hurt as I really felt that we had something special different from other couples our love was some how all encompassing but looks like my rose tinted view was not the entire truth.
I hope that puts my point a view across on this.
Post a Comment