Displaying 1 - 15 out of 43 Forum Posts for the Thread:

James Dobson's Family Reseach Council says "Homosexuality is not a Civil Right."

2008-11-14 11:25 AM

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27

James Dobson’s Family Research Council (FRC) has a brochure entitled: Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right. The brochure explains “why homosexual conduct is not comparable to other characteristics usually protected by civil rights laws ("race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"). Protection against private "discrimination" has historically been offered only for characteristics that are inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, and/or in the Constitution-yet none of these describe homosexual behavior.”

The FRC website further states that, "while the origins of same-sex attractions may be complex, there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn. We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools."

Dobson’s views on homosexuality as being a "choice" are not supported by the American Psychiatric Association. This is just one example of how Christain Right organizations like the FRC have been able to influence public opinion on legislation, and especially that of the Republican Party.

2010-05-10 05:25 PM

MrWonder
Medium City, TX
Posts: 226

Hi Frank,

Here's what I would say. Homosexual conduct is just that - conduct. It's what a person does. What a person does should not be classed as a civil right.

I was born a man. I had no choice in the matter. What I DO with my manhood is my choice. I can choose to engage in sex or I can choose to abstain. I can choose to drink alcohol, use illicit drugs, or leave them both alone. Whatever choice I make about my conduct is not a civil right, but a man being born black and discriminated against because he is black is not discrimination against his conduct, but against his race. He can't become white by not conducting himself as a black person, Michael Jackson aside. What we DO should not qualify as a civil right.

MrWonder

2010-05-10 05:53 PM

ChristyR
Denton, TX
Posts: 197

If you talk to any homosexual person they will tell you that there sexual orientation is not a choice.

Just because you can't see something on the outside from birth, doesn't mean a person wasn't born that way.

It's obvious that you don't believe that people are born gay.... but don't you find it a little hard to deny when such a large population of people can testify to it?

.... Let's set asside the fact that such a large population swears by religion, and I don't believe it. :)

2010-05-10 06:38 PM

MrWonder
Medium City, TX
Posts: 226

Hi Christy,

They may not understand their attraction, but when the attraction becomes action, it has become a choice. See, they have the choice not to act on it or to act on it. That is what is a choice. Acting or not acting on it.

Large population? The fact that 98% of the population for decades on end is heterosexual tells me that is the norm. Some people are born without arms or legs, but that's not the norm. I think there are causes for 2 % being homosexual, but I think it's more than birth. Sexuality is more than what you feel - it's what you do. Some guy may say he was born with the desire to have sex with 3 year olds, but if he ACTS on it, society still says it is wrong. It is unacceptable behavior, and sex acts are definitely behaviors.

MrWonder

2010-05-10 06:39 PM

MrWonder
Medium City, TX
Posts: 226

P.S. And since it is a behavior, it is not a civil right. That was my original point, and I think we are digressing somewhat.

2010-05-10 06:43 PM

ChristyR
Denton, TX
Posts: 197

Right... I see what you are saying. But, let's not compare concentual sex among adults, gay or otherwise, to the raping of children.

That's just creepy :)

I don't know. Even by your definition, you are saying that homosexual people should be denied what they want to their core.

It's not affecting anyone elses lives? It isn't hurting anyone or interfering with your civil rights by any means.

Why should they be denied a behavior that has no ill consequences?

2010-05-10 06:46 PM

ChristyR
Denton, TX
Posts: 197

I just think that persuing happiness should include the ability to act upon something...

2010-05-10 06:53 PM

MrWonder
Medium City, TX
Posts: 226

Hi Christy,

You believe that theoretically, but if a man moved into your neighbor and tried to seduce your child because he considered pursuing his personal happiness, I suspect you would change your mind.

What you probably mean (you tell me) is that you believe pursuing happiness should include the ability to act upon SOME THINGS, but not everything. Insofar as I can tell from watching the world go by, homosexuals already pursue each other freely and they pursue a lot of people that don't WANT to be pursued. I know that from having a neighbor some years back who was that way. If they would stop that kind of misbehavior and stick with their own, there would be a lot less animosity toward them in the general populace.

MrWonder

2010-05-10 07:01 PM

ChristyR
Denton, TX
Posts: 197

LOL

As a somewhat attractive female... All I can say is welcome to the world of unwanted attention :)

In that same logic..... I know a LOT of heterosexual men who shouldn't be able to act on their wants.....

Like I said, raping a child is not consensual... and it IS taking away from the quality of life from someone else. It's not a fair comparison to homosexuality.

2010-05-11 09:54 AM

MrWonder
Medium City, TX
Posts: 226

Hi Christy,

I'm just saying the right to pursue happiness does not include the right to harm others, and I think you agree with that.

MrWonder

2010-05-11 05:34 PM

PASHA
Seattle, WA
Posts: 96

Even the bible speaks of SEXUAL orientation, so this has been an
ON GOING ISSUE, which back when was deemed by GOD supposedly
as a variant that was ANTI GOD, but was it?
THINK a second about SEX and what it implies in SCRIPTURE?
TO THIS WORLD ALONE, and those who believe on a here after, there is no such
thing see MARK 12 the question of the SADUCEES.

So if we aren't married in the AFTER LIFE so then what the brew ha ha about what
goes on in this life?
THINK for a second, if HOMO SEXUAL TENDENCY were the ONLY NORM we as a
species would already be extinct, but nature has variety, consider the folks who
are BORN with both sexes, what are they?
ARE THEY DAMNED BY GOD and the INTERPRETATORS of SCRIPTURE?

LETS just argue to argue that the interpretaors have made nomistakes then by default
they have already misread and misapplied the truth in regards to others peoples and
their religions, by FORCING THEM to CEASE from their IDOL-IDEALISMS.
As the AVATAR of the FIRST CHRISTIAN, JESUS SAID, you christians would be the
PERSECUTED and the PROSECUTED, and what have the supposed christian church
done since the ADVENT @ NICAEA 365 AD? She has become the same sort of zenophobic
bully as todays EXTREMEISTS of ISLAM are.

SOMEONE LIED. SOMEONE IS STILL LYING.
How can you tell who is?
Who is PROFITING THEREBY, and you have you answer.
PROFIT DRIVEN AGENDAS serve not TRUTH, never have never shall.

Are GAYS welcome in HEAVEN? WHY DON"T WE LEAVE THAT TO GOD TO
DECIDE, and let us supposed converted-birthed again christians do as Jesus told another'
reprobate named PETER, mind your own business and make sure you qualify as being
worthy to stand before GOD's THRONE.

NONE OF US RELIGIOUS are worth a farty farthing to sit in JUDGEMENT of anyone other
than our own sordid and blessed selves.

PAX

ps- what hated about JIMMY was his zeal for the UNBORN but in the matter of capital
punishment he was an unrepentant murderer at heart.
HOW CAN YOU DEFEND THE UNBORN WHILE SITTING IN JUDGEMENT OF THOSE IN
ERROR WHO ARE ALREADY BORN? WHO MADE HIM and those like him, the death
sentence passers? HYPOCRITES are such whose agenda is so conflicted.
GOD be praised he finally stepped down.

2010-05-11 05:38 PM

MrWonder
Medium City, TX
Posts: 226

Is that Jimmy Carter?

2010-05-12 02:24 PM

ChristyR
Denton, TX
Posts: 197

MrWonder Wrote:
I'm just saying the right to pursue happiness does not include the right to harm others, and I think you agree with that.

Hey Wonder,

I still don't understand how homosexuality harms others... in your opinion?

If unwanted attention is the only factor, that isn't something that is limited to homosexuality....

Could you clarify?

Thanks!!

2010-05-12 02:36 PM

MrWonder
Medium City, TX
Posts: 226

Hi Christy,

I was commenting on the statement about "the right to pursue happiness". I was not commenting on homosexuality itself at that point.

If people are somehow prevented from being homosexuals, I am not aware of it (except under Islam - it is forbidden by them and you know how they are about cutting off body parts).

No, my comment was meant to refer to the blanket statement about pursuing happiness. I believe that you believe as I do - that that right of pursuit by another ends where my own rights begin, and that's a generic statement that applies, not just to sexual preferences or sexual acts, but to all of life. As a teacher of mine once said, "Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins." Mostly I was thinking of a parent's right to protect their child, but it applies across the board to all people, not just a few.

MrWonder

2010-05-12 03:08 PM

ChristyR
Denton, TX
Posts: 197

Ouch to the Islam comment....

I was watching a special the other day on LOGO (GLBT tv channel) about two gay Islamic men who owned a bar..... Talk about Ballsy.

I have always had a lot of respect for gay people who were strong enough to come out to everyone... It take courage.

We seemed to get a bit off topic here...

I believe that pursuing happiness, by taking actions, is a civil right. This includes acting on any sexual desire (again, consentual desires that do not take away from others).