This video from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council features an interview with David Parker and his wife from Massachusetts.
Their 5-year old daughter brought home pro-homosexual books from school, and when Parker demanded parental notification before this kind of indoctrination was foisted on his children, he was arrested. He was told he had no right to determine the moral training of his own children, and told he had no right to resist his child being indoctrinated to accept an immoral, unnatural and unhealthy sexual practice as legitimate.
This affects good people in Massachusetts, will likely affect good people in California, and since California is the largest state in the union, if the defense of marriage amendment should fail on November 4, it could end up affecting the entire country.
This war on marriage and the family needs to be stopped. But it can only be stopped if good people say "Enough!" and resist this attempt to usurp law, nature, and normality.
It's time good people found their voice, stopped this assault on society's moral fabric, and fought to take back our nation from those who would turn it upside down.
Featured Article
Sunday, October 19, 2008
How Homosexual 'Marriage' Affects Us All: The Frightening Implications
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
It is a lie to claim that Mr. Parker was arrested for demanding parental notification. Mr. Parker was arrested for trespassing because he (admittedly) refused to leave the school building when its staff was attempting to close it for the night, in a childish attempt to force them to do what he wanted. He was warned that he would be arrested if he refused to leave - which is to say, he was given an opportunity to leave peacefully and attempt to argue his wants another day in lawful ways - and he still refused to leave. There is no dispute of these facts, including by Mr. Parker.
Mr. Ellis,
Are those who support same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage bad people?
I think that much should be obvious. If a person performs or advocates immoral and unhealthy practices, yes, they are bad people.
That's an extreme judgment to make about someone you don't even know, Mr. Ellis. It's one thing to say that someone's actions or beliefs are bad, but another thing entirely to say that the very person they are is bad. I might remind you that we are all sinners by nature, regardless of whether we repent. Even though you are a Christian, you are still going to sin (and here's the interesting part - when you sin, you are going to like it). If all sins are equal in God's eyes, then you are no better than a homosexual. Your wife is no better than a homosexual. Your children are no better than a homosexual.
I've been reading some of the comments you make about homosexuals. You use words like "insane," "idiots," "destructive cancer on society," and "unnatural." And now you go one step further and say that they are bad people - not just that they do bad things, but that they themselves are bad people. It must be easy for you to type these words on a computer screen and justify your hostile sentiments with "Jesus did it, so that means I can too." But I wonder, when was the last time you sat down with one of your homosexual friends, looked him dead in the eye, and told him that he is a bad person? I wonder if you're able to say to his face, "I despise what you do. Your behavior is a cancer on society, a threat to good people like me, an abominable perversion of nature, and an immoral mockery of God's design for how normal people should live. You should not be allowed to raise children, and you are an insane idiot if you think I'm going to look at your lifestyle with anything but disgust and sorrow."
How can you honestly claim to have homosexual friends, if this is really what you think about them? Why would you be friends with people who you believe are bad and about whom you obviously have nothing positive to say? Is it because you think you can "fix" them, or at least, that you can lead them to God, who will "fix" them? If so, then you only associate with these people because you think there's something wrong with them. That's not friendship - it's pity. If you didn't believe deep down that there was even the slightest possibility for a homosexual to be redeemed, I doubt you would have any interest in associating with one at all.
If nothing else, I hope you can appreciate why homosexuals have a hard time believing that you love them.
To say that a person is "good" or "bad" is to make a statement about their moral attitudes or actions. If those attitudes or actions are "bad" then they are therefore a "bad person."
Does it mean they are totally evil or irredeemable? Of course not. But if someone goes even beyond practicing immorality but actually promoting it and "celebrating" it, they have moved into an even deeper level of moral failure.
There was a time when I fit that description. I was a drunken, foul-mouthed skirt-chaser, and reveled in that sin. I was a "bad person." But now, while I am not sinless, thanks to God's grace and mercy, I at least strive to live a moral life and defend nothing immoral or harmful.
I never claimed to have homosexual friends that I hang out with on a regular basis, that I associate with closely, that I attend functions and events and such with. But then, I don't hang out and do stuff with people who are heterosexually promiscuous, drink to excess or otherwise pursue unrepentantly immoral lifestyles--though I would consider some, as I do with a handful of homosexuals, as casual friends. (And I think Christ's associations could be described similarly).
I know and have known a handful of homosexuals who forego aggressive promotion of homosexuality and the homosexual agenda, and therefore civil discourse is possible on other matters. They know my position on their sexual behavior, I know theirs, and we are able to have civil discourse on other matters because we don't continually explore the topic together.
There are other homosexuals, however, who push their sexual behavior, acceptance of it, and promotion of their radical agenda for social reengineering on everyone with whom they come in contact, and civil discourse on no level is possible.
Dakota Voice exists to bring to light and expose this radical agenda, the purpose being to help those who are opposed to it to remain alert to assaults on marriage and the family, and also to speak the truth to those caught up in this sin who may be at the point where they are ready to deal with that truth (you are obviously not among that number). It is not a forum intended to "make friends;" it is intended to speak to those who area ready to deal with the truth or who want to defend that truth. And I don't pussy-foot around with the truth; the attack is too severe and the stakes are too high to mince words and pretend the assault is anything less than it is.
Homosexual activists attack marriage, family and society in the public square, and I respond in defense of these institutions in the public square. In my personal life, I strive to develop personal relationships where possible without compromising the truth.
Though I am skeptical, I sincerely hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from, and how Dakota Voice differs from a personal relationship.
The most loving thing a person can do is to attempt to dissuade people from unhealthy and immoral behaviors--whether they realize that or not.
Have you told your casual homosexual friends that you think you're a better person than they are? Do they know that you think you're morally superior to them?
Would you be willing to go to a PFLAG meeting or other pro-homosexual organization and tell all the homosexuals in the room that they are insane, perverse, and bad people?
Would you be able to sit down with Judy Shepard, a fervent activist for homosexual rights, and tell her that her murdered son Matthew symbolized a cancer on society?
If you staged a protest outside of a church where a same-sex wedding had just taken place, do you think passersby would see any meaningful difference between a sign reading "Homosexuals are bad people" and one reading "God hates fags"?
I know that your goal with this blog is not to make friends, but on the other hand, when you say such negative things about homosexuals, are you not surprised to learn that you've made enemies? That the rhetoric you use makes homosexuals LESS likely to engage in productive discussions with you?
If you and Christians like you were to stop saying things like "homosexuality is a cancer on society" and "homosexuals are bad people," do you think anti-homosexual violence would increase or decrease?
It is neither proper nor my place to tell the homosexuals I know personally that I'm "a better person" than they are. It makes much more sense to concentrate on the behavior, which is clearly wrong.
I also don't think anything would be gained by going to a PFLAG meeting or initiating contact with Judy Shepard to tell them the truth about homosexuality; they have made it quite obvious they are not open to the truth. If they, however, approach me about it, I will tell them the truth.
I'm not at all surprised that many homosexuals hate me and Dakota Voice. When you're so wrapped up in a sin that you're fooling yourself into believe it is morally legitimate, anyone who disturbs that fantasy is an enemy.
Christ said "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." The first part of that statement is an unfortunately, but it's one I accept as reality, and I plan to heed the second part.
It may be rude to say outright to a homosexual that you believe you're a better person than they are, but we all know that's what you're thinking. So why not let the truth be known? If it makes more sense to concentrate on behavior rather than character, then why did you change your focus by saying that homosexuals are bad people? That's an indictment of who they are, not just what they do.
And you really don't think there's anything to be gained by telling a roomful of PFLAG advocates that they are an insane, perverse cancer on society? I hope you're not hiding behind politeness or fear of what might happen to you if you said those things. What about all your talk of not "pussy-footing" around the truth? If you really care about these people's souls, you shouldn't hesitate, even if every single person in that room is against you; even if they threaten you with violence for saying the things that you so easily type here on your blog. Do you think Christ would have shied away from an opportunity like that? Do you think He wants you to be passive, to wait for someone to approach you, rather than take the initiative yourself and save these people who you think are deceiving themselves? What if a homosexual activist like Judy Shepard never approaches you? What if her only chance at hearing the truth depended on your stepping in and telling her, even if she didn't want to hear it? How will you explain your silence when you stand before God on judgment day?
The question you chose to ignore happens to be the one I was most eager to hear your response to: objectively speaking, if you and every other Christian were to stop calling homosexuals insane, idiots, perverse, immoral, abominable, abnormal, destructive, unnatural, and bad, do you think anti-homosexual violence would increase or decrease?
I was pretty skeptical that what I said would make a difference to you, and you proved me right.
Christ dealt with people and situations differently based on the surroundings, the circumstances, and the dispositions of the people involved. I try to use the same discernment.
And to answer your silly, bating question, I don't think there would be any change whatsoever, because Christians aren't the ones committing violence against homosexuals, nor are they encouraging violence against homosexuals.
Your question was simply a feeble attempt to deceptively tie moral disapproval of an immoral behavior with another unrelated immoral behavior. I've been around the block a few times too many to fall for such a transparent attempt at misdirection.
Go peddle your Christian-bashing somewhere else.
It's hard to believe that Mr. Parker would be arrested for demanding his rights and steadfastly expressing his need for parental notification, as this video would like us to conclude. There has to be more to the story. At the same time, the Parker's frustration with the community is understandable as they are forced to accept values inconsistent with their beliefs. Their pain is obvious in their words and tears. However, their experience is probably not much different than that of homosexuals who wish to enjoy equal rights (such as marriage) but are forced to accept community values, which are intolerant of that part of their life. The Parkers have options available such as sending their son to a private school, or moving to another state. Or, though I am doubtful that it will happen, they could gain insight from this experience and become more tolerant and accepting of people who are not like them.
kentom1, homosexuals already have equal rights, such as marriage. Homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals have. They often choose not to exercise it and insist on a special right to call their homosexual union a "marriage" which it clearly cannot be; it takes a man and a woman to constitute a marriage. I can call a gopher a fig tree, but it still won't be a fig tree no matter what I call it. I can call my mother my sister but it won't make her my sister.
The Parkers certainly could exercise another educational option for their child. However, they should not be forced to accommodate someone else's immorality, especially when they are paying taxes to support the education system. The immoral should adjust their behavior to conform to moral standards.
Perhaps homosexuals should be more accepting and tolerant of morality and people who adhere to moral standards.
Homosexuals don't have equal rights. A person in a homosexual relationship has around a 1000 less rights than a person in a heterosexual relationship.
That's true that calling your mother 'sister' wouldn't change anything but that's all you're doing. That is not a good example because there is no action in it. If you were to call two people (heterosexual, homosexual, whatever you choose) married even through they were merely dating, that wouldn't make them married. I'm wondering, Bob, if you're married. If you were you would understand that when two people marry they are given new rights such as visitation rights at a hospital or ownership rights over property, etc. For this reason your examples of fig trees and sisters are incorrect. Marriage is not just a word, it's an important action that has a large part in how a couple can live and what rights they are able to obtain.
In your first sentence you said that 'homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals have.' Doesn't that sound nice on paper. Bob, if I was a guy would I be able to attract you? Do other men turn you on? Since you're so against same sex marriage I would assume not. Preference is genetic. These people who are homosexual are like you in the way that they are attracted to one gender and not to the other.
What do you mean that homosexuals should be more accepting and tolerant? What do you know about morality? What does anyone know about morality? In some countries I would be found immoral for walking around in shorts and a t-shirt. Does that make me immoral? Do you believe I'm immoral for having my legs exposed? Do you think that I need to be accepting and wear pants? True I should respect someone's lifestyle and wear pants if i was to visit a place where people believed that but isn't it true that they should accept that while I live in my own home that I can wear shorts any time I wanted?
You're not living in these people's homes. What is it that they are doing that's hurting you? I can only think of two answers that you might give. 1) That they are possibly causing you to think immoral things. Everyone has thoughts and homosexuality is already proven to be genetic. 2) They are possibly harming your children as they were discussing in the video. If you believe this then you should take you're children out of public schools and put them in a private school. I saw that you mentioned having to pay taxes to public schools and so you would be 'wasting' your money. This subject has already come up on different subjects such as rezoning district lines and integration where parents wanted to move their children out of public schools and into private schools. If you were to do this then there is a way to move your tax money which would go to public schools to the private school. It's being done already so that's not an issue.
On the same note you must understand. If you want your children to go to a different school they have a place to go to. The other students don't. If you want to move you can move but public schools are for the public and will be taught in accordance with the public. If you don't want to be with the public, go to private schools. Tax is not an issue because the government already has a way to move that money.
Xan, could you enumerate those 1000 fewer rights that homosexuals have? If they're anything like the right to call their unions "marriage," the list is going to be pretty short.
As I said, homosexuals already have the right to marry; many just don't want to do what it takes to form a marriage: find someone of the opposite sex.
I might want to marry my cat or my mother or a tree, but I don't have the right to because none of those relationships can rightfully comprise a marriage, just as two men or two women cannot. You don't have the right to undermine and counterfeit a relationship just because you're looking for some legitimacy for an otherwise illegitimate relationship.
I already have my children out of the public school. We homeschool them because we want them to have a good education and a good moral foundation--things that would be a crap shoot in the public school system.
But that doesn't mean I can or should turn a blind eye while the moral fabric of the rest of the country is ripped to shreds. It wouldn't be responsible of me, for one thing, but I and my children must live alongside all the people who are losing or have lost their moral compass.
Homosexual behavior is clearly immoral; every major religion and every civilization has condemned it as being immoral, and the Bible is very clear about the issue in both Old and New Testaments.
Homosexual behavior is also unnatural. Common sense should tell us that certain body parts were made for one another, just as other body parts were clearly NOT made for one another. When those reproductive organs are misplaced, there is no legitimate biological function whatsoever.
Homosexual behavior is also very unhealthy. Homosexuals have greatly elevated rates of AIDS, other STDs, hepatitis, depression, anxiety, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence.
Remaining silent while people destroy their bodies and souls engaging in an immoral, unnatural and unhealthy behavior isn't loving, and it isn't responsible--to them or to society.
Post a Comment