[Vision2020] Re: David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad day in IDAHO

[Ed]

Joe,

The logic prof., once again, brings illogical arguments to the table.. C'mon Joe..

the homosexual agenda is one that advocates special rights for their kind--some of those absurd rights very eloquently laid out/described vision2020's own g. crabtree. No group (or member of any group) deserves special rights, privileges, considerations--regardless. These special rights, in my opinion, are group rights. 

Joe, there must also  be limitations placed on individual rights, especially those that are harmful, cruel, hateful, immoral etc... If we allow homosexual marriage to be legal, we are essentially mocking the institution of traditional marriage, debasing its significance--and, in my (and the majority of other's) opinion, condoning immorality. But, is this an individual rights issue anyway? The outcome of the proposed marriage makes it, by definition, a group--albeit, a small one at that. Next, people will be lobbying to marry their dog, fish, or dolphin (as evidenced by some eccentric millionaire in England).. 

There's no reason this perversion can't exist; but, need we allow them to marry? And, should we allow them to be at the forefront of society, parading themselves as normal? Pushing warped ideas, such as forcing schoolchildren to be alerted to every insignificant accomplishment made by a homosexual, while studying history? In my estimation, this is bad teaching, as well as bad for society in general. 

And, your use of the Preamble to support your position? What? Are we using a literal interpretation? or a living translation? Men are mentioned here, not women. Are these unalienable rights deserved by them? Anyway, it is intended to buttress the notion of individual rights--not group rights. 

No evasion here.--

--Ed

--Ed


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Campbell 
  To: Ed 
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com ; Chasuk 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad day in IDAHO


  What is the "homosexual agenda," Ed? How is the right of one man to marry another man -- e.g., the right of each person to marry the adult person of his or her choice -- a "special" or "group" right and not an individual right? This is a right that you and I enjoy but clearly not everyone enjoys this right. You are the one advocating special rights, rights that straights enjoy but gays and lesbians do not.

  This particular liberal does not want "special privileges for every diversity or enclave in the States," so your unsupported generalization is just plain false, as well. All I want is equal rights for all. All I want is the US to realize the true consequences of these very words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

  You can suggest that this is something special but you are smart enough to know better. I didn't notice any footnotes in the Declaration of Independence advocating the narrow interpretation that you would give it. Can you point them out to me?

  I await your next evasion of my clear and direct questions.

  --
  Joe Campbell

  ---- Ed <ecooper at turbonet.com> wrote: 

  =============
  Chas,

  I'm glad to see you're reading material from quality web sites. Horowitz is not my hero, but a great visionary and thinker. He makes some valid points in the article; but, in my estimation,  he fails to stress the importance of our Constitutionally-grounded individual rights in a society that is increasingly demanding group rights. 

  True conservatives advocate equal rights for all; liberals want special privileges for every diversity or enclave in the States. In my estimation, he (Horowitz) was a bit over the line in his dismissal of the KKK analogy. The KKK is somebody--even though their intentions/actions are racially-driven. However, one could categorize both these groups' agendas as harmful, detrimental to society. (Note, I don't advocate violence towards any person or any group--or kicking someone in the groin for that matter. )

  In sum, the article was well-written, but failed to mention his true feelings about the homosexual agenda..

  FWIW, my idol (if I had one) would be Lawrence Auster...another Jewish American.. (Horowitz and Feder, also great conservative Jewish intellects.) Course, I'm a racist, sexist, homophobe if you listen to some people..

  Thanks for sharing the article, Chas.  I enjoyed it...

  --Ed
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Chasuk 
    To: Ed 
    Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
    Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:25 PM
    Subject: David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad day in IDAHO


    On 5/17/06, Ed <ecooper at turbonet.com> wrote:

    > Next, a well-written article, by a Jewish intellect, many will find
    > interesting

    > HOMOSEXUALS HAVE EASTER BUNNY IN THEIR SIGHTS

    Thank you, Ed.  In the spirit of reciprocity, I'll share an article
    written by your hero, David Horowitz.  Actually, I think everyone
    should read this article.  I found it informative, and Horowitz is
    definitely not my hero.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7910

    Pride Before a Fall

    In four Gospels - including the Sermon on the Mount -  Jesus neglected
    to mention the subject of homosexuality. But that hasn't stopped a
    handful of self-appointed leaders of the so-called Religious Right
    from deciding that it is an issue worth the presidency of the United
    States. In what the Washington Times described as a "stormy session"
    last week, the Rev. Lou Sheldon, Paul Weyrich, Gary Bauer and eight
    other "social conservatives" read the riot act to RNC chairman Marc
    Racicot for meeting with the "Human Rights Campaign," a group
    promoting legal protections for homosexuals. This indiscretion, they
    said, "could put Bush's entire re-election campaign in jeopardy."

    According to the Times' report by Ralph Hallow, the RNC chairman
    defended himself by saying, "You people don't want me to meet with
    other folks, but I meet with anybody and everybody." To this Gary
    Bauer retorted, "That can't be true because you surely would not meet
    with the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan."

    Nice analogy Gary. Way to love thy neighbor.

    This demand to quarantine a political enemy might have had more
    credibility if the target – the Campaign for Human Rights -- were
    busily burning crosses on social conservatives' lawns. But they
    aren't. Moreover, the fact that it is, after all, crosses the Ku Klux
    Klan burns, might suggest a little more humility on the part of
    Christians addressing these issues. Just before the launching of the
    2000 presidential campaign, George Bush himself was asked about
    similarly mean-spirited Republican attacks. His response was that
    politicians like him weren't elected to pontificate about other
    people's morals and that his own faith admonished him to take the beam
    out of his own eye before obsessing over the mote in someone else's.

    The real issue here is tolerance of differences in a pluralistic
    society. Tolerance is different from approval, but it is also
    different from stigmatizing and shunning those with whom we disagree.

    I say this as someone who is well aware that Christians are themselves
    a persecuted community in liberal America, and as one who has stood up
    for the rights of Christians like Paul Weyrich and Gary Bauer to have
    their views, even when I have not agreed with some of their agendas.
    Not long ago, I went out on a public limb to defend Paul Weyrich when
    he was under attack by the Washington Post and other predictable
    sources for a remark he had made that was (reasonably) construed as
    anti-Semitic. I defended Weyrich because I have known him to be a
    decent man without malice towards Jews and I did not want to see him
    condemned for a careless remark. I defended him in order to protest
    the way in which we have become a less tolerant and more mean-spirited
    culture than we were.

    I have this to say to Paul: A delegation to the chairman of the RNC to
    demand that he have no dialogue with the members of an organization
    for human rights is itself intolerant, and serves neither your ends
    nor ours. You told Racicot, "if the perception is out there that the
    party has accepted the homosexual agenda, the leaders of the
    pro-family community will be unable to help turn out the pro-family
    voters. It won't matter what we say; people will leave in droves."

    This is disingenuous, since you are a community leader and share the
    attitude you describe. In other words, what you are really saying is
    that if the mere perception is that the Republican Party has accepted
    the "homosexual agenda," you will tell your followers to defect with
    the disastrous consequences that may follow. As a fellow conservative,
    I do not understand how in good conscience you can do this. Are you
    prepared to have President Howard Dean or President John Kerry preside
    over our nation's security? Do you think a liberal in the White House
    is going to advance the agendas of social conservatives? What can you
    be thinking?

    In the second place, the very term "homosexual agenda," is an
    expression of intolerance as well. Since when do all homosexuals think
    alike? In fact, thirty percent of the gay population voted Republican
    in the last presidential election. This is a greater percentage than
    blacks, Hispanics or Jews. Were these homosexuals simply deluded into
    thinking that George Bush shared their agendas? Or do they perhaps
    have agendas that are as complex, diverse and separable from their
    sexuality as women, gun owners or Christians, for that matter?

    In your confusion on these matters, you have fallen into the trap set
    for you by your enemies on the left. It is the left that insists its
    radical agendas are the agendas of blacks and women and gays. Are you
    ready to make this concession -- that the left speaks for these
    groups, for minorities and "the oppressed?" Isn't it the heart of the
    conservative argument that liberalism (or, as I would call it,
    leftism) is bad doctrine for all humanity, not just white Christian
    males?

    If the President's party – or conservatism itself -- is to prevail in
    the political wars, it must address the concerns of all Americans and
    seek to win their hearts and minds. It is conservative values that
    forge our community and create our coalition, and neither you nor
    anyone else has - or should have - a monopoly in determining what
    those values are.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060517/67688a52/attachment-0001.htm