Liberty and Virtue

A person who experiences same sex attraction and who endeavors to live chastely in accordance with his religious beliefs keeps an eye out for examples of gay activists' (1) showing intolerance and hatred of traditional religious and moral beliefs and believers, (2) attempting to deny freedom of speech, assembly and religion to others, and (3) trying to cause the government to impose liberal views on sexual morality on society. Other stuff of interest to blogger may also occasionally be posted.

Gay activists do not speak for all those who experience same sex attraction!

Not all those with SSA reject traditional sexual morality!

Not all those with SSA support promiscuity!

Not all those with SSA believe the gay activist ideology of “gay pride”!

Not all those with SSA believe in making their sex drive their primary public identity!

Not all those with SSA support public indecency in “gay pride” parades!

Not all those with SSA support government promotion of homosexual activity!

Not all those with SSA support same sex marriage!

Not all those with SSA support biased teaching in public schools on homosexual matters!

Not all those with SSA demonize traditional religious believers!

Not all those with SSA wish to deny basic freedoms of speech, religion and association to those who disagree with the gay activists’ ideology and agenda!

Christian charity for persons does not require affirmation of sinful or immoral activity!

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Mark Foley: Democratic/Gay Activist Hypocrisy (Political Outings Underway)

I am utterly disgusted at the hypocrisy of the Democrats on this Mark Foley issue. I am also sickened that we are now apparently in for a round of politically motivated outings of homosexuals by gay activists with the blessing of the Democratic Party.

Republican Congressman Mark Foley made improper sexual comments via instant messaging with Congressional pages. Whether or not the recipient of the comments was legally considered a minor doesn't much matter to me, because I think taking advantage of any senior/junior work relationship to obtain sexual favors is wrong and should be condemned. Mr. Foley has, quite properly, resigned over this. Such behavior should not be tolerated in Congress, no matter what party the perpetrator might be.

However, since when have Democrats found anything wrong with this type of activity in their own ranks? Democrat Congressman Gerry Studds, who actually had a sexual affair with a page, not only did not resign, but was repeatedly reelected by his electorate and lionized by the Democratic party, as was Democrat Congressman Barney Frank, whose boyfriend ran a homosexual prostitution ring from Frank's house. Democrat President Bill Clinton never resigned over his indiscretions with a female intern, and in fact we were repeatedly told that in connection with the President's peccadilloes that it was unfair to even discuss such private matters.

But now the Democrats are hypocritically and from purely partisan electoral motives trying to blame the Republican Congressional leadership for not cracking down on Foley, even though there is no evidence that the leadership had been shown the salacious instant messages that caused the uproar. The double standard is crystal clear. It also looks increasingly also like Democratic operatives may have known about the damning instant messages several months if not years ago, but did nothing about them until now, just before the November 2006 midterm elections.

Now, creepy gay activist Mike Rogers is circulating a list of homosexual Republican Congressional staffers so as to "out" them for partisan political purposes. And absolutely no leading Democrat has condemned this. What utter jerks! Once again, the gay activists and the Democrats have demonstrated that they believe that no one who has same sex attraction is (a) entitled to keep their sexual proclivities private (or be "closeted", as the gay activist term of abuse goes -- everyone must "come out" or else will be forced to by the thuggish outing brigade), (b) entitled to hold conservative political beliefs or support Republican policies, or (c) object to items of the gay activist agenda such as same sex "marriage" or teaching that homosexual activity is moral in the schools).

Gay activist Andrew Sullivan's reaction to the Mark Foley incident is apparently to say that the "closet" corrupts, the implication therefore being that being in the "closet" is is what caused Foley to sexually abuse children. Of course Andrew Sullivan is known for smearing entire classes of people with a broad brush, as is demonstrated by his hatemongering abusive neologism "Christianists" to refer to traditional Christian believers (to people like Andrew Sullivan and Rosie O'Donnell, Christians are just the same as murderous Islamists, get it?). It is not surprising that to gay activists like Sullivan, any one with same sex attraction who chooses not to make homosexuality their primary public identity is automatically a child molester. Sullivan has some nerve to slime all "closeted" homosexuals as child molesters. Unfortunately, it is typical for him and many of his fellow gay activists, for whom everyone with same sex attraction must walk in lock step with every item on the gay activist political agenda. I know exactly how African-American conservatives feel when they are berated by their fellow African-Americans for daring to step out of line politically from the appropriate identity group.

Foley is an individual who has sinned, and who hopefully now realizes his fault. He deserves our prayers and compassion. However, to Democrats and gay activists, conservative homosexuals deserve nothing but scorn. If they continue their outing of conservative homosexuals, I have every belief that, like Democrat John Kerry's and John Edwards' extremely distasteful attempt to make Mary Cheney's lesbianism an issue in the last Presidential election, the good and decent people of American will see through their hypocrisy and mean-spirited attacks on those with same sex attraction who don't parrot the gay activist party line.

Charles S.

Here are some pertinent links:

James Taranto on Democratic dirty tricks re: Mark Foley

James Taranto on Andrew Sullivan

Blogger Macranger on Mike Rogers' evil outing campaign

Free Speech and Freedom of Religion Watch: Canada

Apparently, even raising the possibility of protecting free speech and religious exercise rights is controversial in Canada!

Charles S.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Free Speech Watch: Great Britain

Christian faces court over 'offensive' gay festival leaflets.

Charles S.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Public School Indoctrination Watch: Spain

Spain to Teach Children From Age 10 to Accept Homosexuality.

Charles S.

Friday, July 14, 2006

Boston Globe Discovers Gay Intolerance

A New Intolerance Visits Provincetown

Charles S.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Kicking the "Christianists"

A most excellent critique of Andrew Sullivan's hatemongering and pontificating.

Charles S.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Joseph Bottum on l'Affaire Robert Smith

Robert Smith is the USA's answer to Rocco Buttiglione, it would seem.

Charles S.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Gays Have Emerged as the New Protected Class in America

John Leo on the Governor Ehrlich/Robert Smith affair:


Ehrlich's third adjective, "unacceptable," is surely debatable. Did he mean that all members of Washington-area boards are required to approve of homosexuality, or just that they must suppress any non-positive views during TV discussions of same-sex marriage?


Why didn't Gov. Erhrlich simply say that he disagrees with Smith, but considers him an excellent public servant, which the Washington Post coverage of the story makes clear he is? The answer is that in Washington, and among the elites everywhere, approval of homosexuality is now mandatory. In the old days, employees were fired for being gay. Now they are far more likely to get fired for failing to approve homosexuality or for some remark that the gay lobby resents.


Charles S.

<< # St. Blog's Parish ? >>