Gay Rights Are Not Civil Rights

Today, as I looked over the review of the Philadelphia mayoral debate last night, I read the issue of civil rights versus gay rights.
The issue has been divided, as all things seem to be in this country, between politics, definition of morality and what the definition of civil rights really means.
On the Republican candidate side, Al Taunenberg, is staunchly against a decision made by the Fairmount Park Council which will charge the Boy Scouts of America $200,000 a year to use city land for their yearly gatherings. If elected, he intends to reverse the Park Council's decision. For the past 80 years, the Boy Scouts, who pay but a dollar to rent the grounds but who also do a lot of caretaking, for free, for the property, have used the land without incident. However, seven years after the Supreme Court struck down a lawsuit by gay rights activists claiming that the Boy Scouts, who are run on Christian values, have the right to deny the position of scoutmaster to homosexual men, the same activists are now using blackmail to obtain their means. The 'threat' made to the Boy Scouts was literally, either allow gay men to play with boys in the Boy Scouts or we will evict you from city property.
On the Democrat candidate's side, Michael Nutter, a politician I had actually liked up to this point and who I considered voting for, has claimed that gay rights are the same as civil rights and claims that either the Boy Scouts pay the 'fee' or get off the land.
In any other place and time, this request would be considered extortion and blackmail.
I disagree, however, with Mr. Nutter's assumption that gay rights are the same as civil rights. There is no comparison between how homosexuals have been treated to the slavery that African Americans and other racial minorities endured before the start of the American Civil War and through the Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Era of the 1960s.
African Americans were considered genetically and racially inferior. They were barred from public education, religious institutions, holding property or public office. They ate in the back of diners and sat in the rear of buses. They were lynched, shot, burned and terrorized for the simple crime of saying hello to a white woman.
Homosexuals, however, have not experienced the same type of attitude and behavior towards them. They can and do hold public office and own property. They can vote freely, without harassment, eat where they want and travel from state to state without hardly a second glance. They have access to educational institutions and can speak freely without being shot at.
African Americans were born as they were. Homosexuals choose to be what they are. This is not an issue of genetics or race as it is an issue of morality.
Throughout civilization, homosexuality has been looked down as abherant behavior. Even outside of Christian influence, other religious faiths, including Buddhist, Hindu, Jews and Islam, also condemn same sex relationships. God states, quite clearly, in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy that men and women who lay with the same sex is an abomination to both God and man.
Biologically, same sex relationships are not normal for if they were then there would not be a need to seperate the sexes into two. Although sex is pleasurable, it's ultimate function is to produce life. People of the same sex cannot reproduce. It is physically impossible. If we were, as gay activist Chris Crocker states, all meant to be 'gay' then we would be asexual instead of heterosexual. There would be no need for male and female sex organs.
Gay activists claim that being 'gay' is a right. In this, I actually agree. God did give us free will to sin or not to sin. What you do behind closed doors is your own business, however, I do not believe that you should expect preferential treatment because of your sexual activities.
Elton John, Boy George and George Michael never experienced the same mistreatment as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X or even Mohammed Ali or Colin Powell.
Opening the door to gay rights is a Pandora's box. After this, what will be next? Will it be pedophiles claiming that they cannot control their sexual urges with children? Will prostitutes demand 'equal rights'? How about drug dealers, after all, peddling drugs is capitalism, isn't it? A free market?
Gay rights is not civil rights and I think it is disrespectful for homosexuals to claim an alliance or kin to how African Americans have been treated in this country. Their rights are nothing more than a political ploy to change the culture and morality of the United States and nothing else.
Being gay is not love but a corruption of love. Jesus was not gay but he loved everyone equally. He didn't have sex with anyone he chose to. I love my Dad and my brother in law but I've no desire to have sexual relations with them. I've had friends in the service I'd give my life for and consider brothers but no desire to be between the sheets with them. I can love them without sexual intercourse. This is something homosexuals cannot understand.
Gay rights are not civil rights.
I expect to be condemned for my thoughts and opinions but I would rather be honest and upfront on them then to hide them behind being 'cool' or politically correct.
It is not a crime, although there are those who are trying to make it so, to tell someone they are doing something wrong; particularly in the realm of morality.
You don't see me burning crosses, standing picket lines or beating up homosexuals. Those homosexuals I do know claim that I have always treated them with fairness and dignity even though I do not agree with their lifestyle.
You can love the sinner and hate the sin.
Let the chips fall where they may.

Living Up To Your Word

There was a time, not that many decades ago, where a person lived and died by his word, by his promise to do something or to live up to a certain code of ethics. That time, as I found out today, thanks to liberalism and the duty shirking role models we have today, is one that is in grave danger of fading away into history.
Giving your word is something not to be taken lightly. It is to be considered and given with all reverence and solemnity. It is, as stated, a solemn promise or oath. Giving your word doesn't mean just saying you'll do something but also requires you to live up to what you say. Your word, when given, tells the other person you gave it to that, you can count on me; don't worry.
I have served in the Navy for nearly 20 years. During this time, I have been sent on many deployments across the globe starting as a 23 year old sailor at the tail end of the First Gulf War. During this deployment, I learned of the death of my mother from diabetes. I was saddened and wept like a child but I still carried out my duties. In addition to this deployment, I had been sent to Kosovo and to the Arabian Gulf in support of both Afghanistan and the Iraq War. In between wars, I've even chased pirates in the caribbean in a attempt to thwart drug smuggling into the United States. While I was away, I missed births, deaths, funerals, holidays, birthdays, weddings, anniversaries and other special events with my family. There were times that I was away from my family for months communicating only through regular mail or a 10 minute phone call when my ship decided to visit a port. There were times I was afraid or did not want to go on the scheduled, and often unscheduled, deployments but I went because I felt it was my duty to do so.
Why did I feel duty bound to do this? Because, on a cold day in January of 1988, I freely rose my hand and took an oath to God, the President and to everyone who lives in this nation, to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic'. It was an oath I did not take lightly and one, although I struggled with it, I have lived up to it regardless of the long seperation from family and loneliness and fear I endured.
Today, I had a 22 year old boy, not a man for he is still far from ever being called that, who, out of fear, rejected his orders to report for duty in Iraq. He was not going to be sent to a combat unit but to a logistical one in the confines of the Green Zone in Baghdad. He would have lived in a barracks, not in a ditch, eating 3 warm meals a day and be able to communicate to his family through e-mail and telephone calls. This, in comparison to the life experienced by soldiers in the field, is not only safe but pretty comfortable.
It was not only fear that motivated him to repudiate his orders but also because he was unwilling to give up time he would have lost with his friends and girlfriend he sees every weekend. When I look at all the lost moments I can never regain with my own family and friends I have but little sympathy for this boy.
If he was a draftee, perhaps I would feel some form of compassion for him but I cannot find it within myself. He is a volunteer; just as I am. With the uniform they issue him come certain obligations we must adhere to including the possiblity of having to serve in a combat area. The Navy, as are all the other branches of the service, is not something to just waste 2 to 4 years of your life just so you can gain free money for college; there are expectations expected of you as well. Obligations we cannot refuse. Duties we must perform.
To add insult to injury, after the discipline review board was held on him determining that he must face non-judicial punishment, my sailor was found outside holding court with his friends and openly mocking the entire proceedings including a horrible and disgraceful mock salute he laughed with his friends about. His behavior has been noted and will be mentioned at the judicial proceedings in front of our commanding officer where they will, without doubt, bring great influence upon the CO's decision to punish this boy.
He additionally holds no guilt over the fact that because of his absence, another sailor has been detailed to take his place in Iraq. He gave no thought to this man's family, or friends or financial considerations; he only thought about his own comfort and safety and spending time partying with friends and making out with his girlfriend in somewhere-ville, North Carolina.
I think that he should write a letter to apologize to the man who took his place. Others agreed and he will be forced to write such a letter.
I don't understand where he can get off thinking that he can shirk his duties? Why he must be held to a different standard than the 110,000 other men and women already in country in Iraq and Afghanistan? There are men and women there who have sick fathers, or strained marital relationships or children they have never seen but they go about their duty because they gave their word.
My sailor doesn't know the meaning of the words "I promise".
Because of legalities (and liberalism), I cannot send him to the military prison he so rightly deserves. I believe that a year in Leavenworth, Kansas; one of the worst military prisons in the country, literally, a hell on earth would properly punish a boy who is far too selfish for his own good. Because of 'sea-lawyers' I cannot punish him as he needs to be but can only provide 'administrative' punishment.
Still, I fully intend to see that 'administrative' punishment is dealt to him as he deserves.
He deserves his rank to be removed from him.
He deserves the restriction to the barracks and additional manual labor over a period of months that will be assigned to him.
He deserves his college money taken away from him.
He deserves his benefits stripped from him including not being able to ever hold a government job or work for the police, postal or fire department. Personally, I don't even think he should have the right to ever vote either.
He deserves to be mocked and made fun of in front of the entire command where he will be made an example to others.
He fully is deserving of the label of coward because he failed to live up to his 'word'.

Rudy Gaining on Hillary

Rudy Gaining on Hillary Current mood: calm Category: News and Politics
Hillary Clinton's dreamwalk is ending and her nightmare has just begun.
Because of her flip-flopping and blatant lies about her voting record concerning the Iraq War and authorization of military force against Iran, she is losing the confidence of her supporters allowing the Republicans to gain ground on her. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC (found on Townhall.com) poll shows Senator Hillary Clinton slipping in the polls and former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani gaining ground to pull even with her.
Although conservatives bristle at the idea, Rudy's stance on abortion and gay rights may sway moderates away from Senator Clinton's neo-socialism and firmly into the Republican camp.
I hate to say that during this election I must vote for the lesser of the two evils and I've been looking into Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain as candidates I would be willing to support in the upcoming Presidential election.
Although I've lost confidence with the current Republican leadership I'm still willing to stay the course with them.
You may ask why and I'll be glad to tell you.
1. The Democrats say they support the troops but not the war but they not only have forwarded efforts to cut the funding to our soldiers in the field but they said very little when MoveOn.org made their false accusations towards General Petraeus during his Senate hearing last September. As a serviceman myself, my unit is currently operating without a budget thanks to the Democrats stalling in Congress.
2. The Democrats claim they support religion but yet they continue to also support abortion, gay marriage and the use of fetuses for stem cell research. They say one thing but do another.
3. I'm actually for some sort of medical insurance reform (notice the word reform; not re-create) but I'm not for socialized medicine which would only bankrupt the economy and prevent the patient from making their own choices when it comes to health care. It is interesting to note that on VoteSmart.com's website, both Senator Hillary Clinton and House Speaker Pelosi receive over 40% of their funding for their campaigns from insurance companies. Does the public really think that the Democrats are going to bite the hand that feeds them?
4. Granting an amnesty for illegal immigrants and offering them health and educational benefits is, to me, not only criminal, but an insult to those of us who pay taxes and live, legally, in this country. However, this is just what the Democrats desire to do. The Democrats refuse to acknowledge the very laws they claim to protect.
For awhile, I was going to support the Democrats but no longer. I finally came to some common sense. It looks like the rest of the country is too.