| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
30 Jul 2004 06:00:39 PM |
| Object: |
Family Research Council rant July 30, 2004 |
Kerry's Speech Leaves Many Unanswered Questions
During his acceptance speech last night, Democratic Nominee John Kerry tried
to challenge President Bush on the issue of "values." Kerry said, "For four
years, we've heard a lot of talk about values. But values spoken without
actions taken are just slogans...it is time for those who talk about family
values to start valuing families." Well if we can judge values by examining
actions, let's take a closer look at Sen. Kerry. Listening to his speech you
would never know he was the same guy who has voted repeatedly to affirm
partial-birth abortion, to grant homosexuals special rights, and to block
the Defense of Marriage Act. If Sen. Kerry has his way the institutions of
marriage and family will be completely dismantled.
In fact, last night he sent a coded message to the homosexual lobby to tell
them he's on their side, promising that he won't "misuse for political
purposes the Constitution of the United States," (in other words, he won't
support a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage). Is this how he
values family? Kerry tries to excuse his liberal votes by saying, "I don't
wear my own faith on my sleeve...I don't want to claim that God is on our
side...I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side." Does he think that
God is pleased by the destruction of the institution of marriage, or by the
gruesome killing of more than 43 million unborn children?
We're not asking Sen. Kerry to wear his faith on his sleeve. It doesn't take
public religious fervor to be a family-friendly President. What it takes is
being a man of character who will defend the most fragile among us, the
unborn, and who will protect the very bedrock of our society, marriage.
Judging by his record, it looks like Sen. Kerry still has a lot to learn
about family values.
Politics Trumps Science in APA Resolutions
The American Psychological Association this week continued decades of
ideologically-driven political activism by adopting resolutions endorsing
adoption rights and civil marriage for same-sex couples. The APA report
admits that homosexuals have higher rates of "psychiatric disorders" than
heterosexuals, but attributes this to "discrimination and prejudice." It
also makes the astonishing claim that "same-sex couples are remarkably
similar to heterosexual couples."
Both arguments are refuted by evidence showing pathologies associated with
homosexuality even in the most "gay-friendly" areas on earth. For example, a
study of homosexual men in the Netherlands (the first country to legalize
same-sex civil "marriage"), published in the medical journal AIDS just last
year, found that the average "duration of steady partnerships" was only one
and a half years, and that even those with a "steady" partner had an average
of eight "casual" sex partners per year.
The APA also claims that homosexual parents have no effect on the
"development and psychological well-being" of children. Either the APA
missed a 2001 article in the American Sociological Review which showed that
children raised by lesbians are more "sexually adventurous," or once again,
the APA is allowing political correctness to trump science.
'Washington Watch Weekly' - Tune In This Weekend
For a closer look and analysis of this past week's Democratic Convention,
tune in to FRC's weekly radio program, Washington Watch Weekly. Genevieve
Wood and I talk with Republican strategist Ralph Reed about how sharp a
contrast the GOP is willing to draw with the Democrats on key issues like
protecting marriage and stem cell research. FRC's Director of Congressional
Relations Jayd Henricks, who was in Boston, gives us a pro-family insider's
take on activities surrounding the convention, including those of "Democrats
for Life."
Additional Resources
Click Here to Find a Station Near You Airing 'Washington Watch Weekly'
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=LK04G60&f=WU04G22&t=e
.
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Family Research Council rant July 30, 2004 |
30 Jul 2004 07:11:16 PM |
|
|
In article <rqAOc.2126$EL5.416@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Kerry's Speech Leaves Many Unanswered Questions
During his acceptance speech last night, Democratic Nominee John Kerry tried
to challenge President Bush on the issue of "values." Kerry said, "For four
years, we've heard a lot of talk about values. But values spoken without
actions taken are just slogans...it is time for those who talk about family
values to start valuing families." Well if we can judge values by examining
actions, let's take a closer look at Sen. Kerry. Listening to his speech you
would never know he was the same guy who has voted repeatedly to affirm
partial-birth abortion, to grant homosexuals special rights, and to block
the Defense of Marriage Act. If Sen. Kerry has his way the institutions of
marriage and family will be completely dismantled.
Gosh demogogery at its finest! Letting people have the right to
choose is a good value, and for those demanding a 'special right' of
heterosexual only marriage to talk about 'special rights' is so
hypocritical its funny. And, of course there have been gay families
and marriages for decades, neither has suffered.
In fact, last night he sent a coded message to the homosexual lobby to tell
them he's on their side, promising that he won't "misuse for political
purposes the Constitution of the United States," (in other words, he won't
support a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage). Is this how he
values family?
Of course, letting all families prosper is anatham to the theists.
They want to force everyone to act they way THEY want them to - they
are the anti-choice.
Politics Trumps Science in APA Resolutions
The American Psychological Association this week continued decades of
ideologically-driven political activism by adopting resolutions endorsing
adoption rights and civil marriage for same-sex couples. The APA report
admits that homosexuals have higher rates of "psychiatric disorders" than
heterosexuals, but attributes this to "discrimination and prejudice." It
also makes the astonishing claim that "same-sex couples are remarkably
similar to heterosexual couples."
And there is any indication that isn't true?
Both arguments are refuted by evidence showing pathologies associated with
homosexuality even in the most "gay-friendly" areas on earth. For example, a
study of homosexual men in the Netherlands (the first country to legalize
same-sex civil "marriage"), published in the medical journal AIDS just last
year, found that the average "duration of steady partnerships" was only one
and a half years, and that even those with a "steady" partner had an average
of eight "casual" sex partners per year.
I love when they are caught in lies. That study was done with only the
young men of the in with the Amsterdam AIDS cohort, and cohort that
does not accept non-promiscuous participants, i.e. you have to have had
more than one sexual partner in the previous year to even join! And it
wasn't about those Dutch men who have actually registered partnerships,
it was just those that were dating.
So what it is really saying is that young promiscuous men recruited in
the heart of one of Europe's gay meccas in their teens and twenties NOT
in monogamous relationships tend to seriously date someone for about a
year and a half and many aren't sexually exclusive while they are so
dating. Gosh, sounds like your standard hetereosexual frat member to
me.
Of course the FRC knows they are misrepresenting the study, but since
their only goal is propaganda, they probably don't even care that they
are lying - only if they get caught.
The APA also claims that homosexual parents have no effect on the
"development and psychological well-being" of children. Either the APA
missed a 2001 article in the American Sociological Review which showed that
children raised by lesbians are more "sexually adventurous," or once again,
the APA is allowing political correctness to trump science.
Which of course would have no sigificant effect on their 'development
or psychological well-being.'. Who actually buys this tripe that the
FRC spews anyway?
--
"...when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we should see our way clear
to allowing same-sex couples to marry for the same, selfish primitive reasons
that we do: to not be alone, to have a steady source of comfort in our lives,
to belong to someone who has promised to be there for us tomorrow and tomorrow
and tomorrow."
"After all, what else is marriage for?"
-- Robert Lerose, 2004 winner - 'Great American Thinkoff' contest
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
