Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Remember When The Left Preached Tolerance?

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was a constitutional right and had to be legal in every state. Forty years later here in 2013, the court may do the same with homosexual “marriage.” So-called Progressives don’t believe there’s anything wrong with either and don’t tolerate anyone who does. Leftist California passed a law last November against counseling for homosexuals who want to change their sexual preference and it’s got me thinking: How long before the leftist majority in one of our blue states passes a law banning counseling for women who have had abortions? My guess is not too long.
That men could relinquish desire for men or women for women is vehemently denied by homosexual activists. Their questionable claim that homosexuality is biologically predetermined for everyone is the most important item in their agenda, even though scientific evidence to support it is thin at best. Furthering that belief is the basis for their political victories repealing sodomy laws, passing “gay rights” laws, and now pushing for homosexual “marriage.” That’s why they outlaw counseling for people who start thinking homosexuality may not be so “gay” when they learn that life expectancy for homosexual men is about twenty years shorter than for the rest of the population. Such counseling is very threatening for activists who insist it’s impossible for homosexuals to change. They want to make it illegal for anyone, anywhere, to utter anything contrary to their own propaganda - as they have already in Canada, where it’s a “hate crime” to write a column like this one.
Pro and con outside the Supreme Court during deliberations on homosexual "marriage"

If therapists are counseling patients to overcome same-sex attraction, that implies there could be something wrong with homosexuality - and they have to be silenced. After Governor “Moonbeam” Brown signed the bill into law, those therapists who persist will lose their license to practice. If they’re also counseling women for post-abortion trauma, that implies that abortion can be bad for women psychologically and feminists hate any such suggestion.

Feminists are even more important to the left than homosexuals - and abortion is their most sacred issue. The Democrats’ contrived “War on Women” helped them win big last November and we can expect them to ramp up their dubious rhetoric as long as it wins elections. President Obama makes continued funding for Planned Parenthood - which aborts hundreds of thousands of babies every year in the United States - sacrosanct in his budget negotiations with Congress. He pledged to veto any budget that cut funds for the abortion giant.

Given that there have been more than 50 million abortions in America since Roe V Wade in 1973, how many women out there are suffering from guilt or trauma? To admit that women may be suffering from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and generalized heartache after having abortions might cause people to reconsider their pro-choice position. Radical feminists like those at Ms. Magazine claim the very suggestion there is any such thing as PASS (Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome) is an attack on abortion rights. In her Ms. article, Cynthia L. Cooper wrote: “Abortion does not ‘hurt’ women and there is no such thing as ‘Post Abortion Syndrome’ . . .” and “[PASS] is a bogus affliction invented by the religious right.” This is the same kind of rhetoric that preceded the California law outlawing therapy for homosexuals who want to change.
Consider a recent Colorado court ruling that anti-abortion protesters may not display images of babies who have been aborted. The irony is that the court claimed they were “protecting children” from seeing what happens to other children whose mothers choose to abort them. The judges’ official wording claims they’re: “protecting children from exposure to certain images of aborted fetuses and dead bodies.” This prevents anyone from seeing what the pro-choice side is actually choosing, and that’s the whole point. What’s next? Banning images of Holocaust victims to “protect” Jews?
Legal challenges against both the Colorado Ruling and the California law are pending at this writing, but if we want to see where the left would take America, look north. Dr. Chris Kempling, a psychologist from British Columbia mentioned two brave men in a speech to the UN Human Rights Commission: “I met one of the men, Donald Spratt, who was incarcerated in British Columbia's maximum security Oakalla prison for his crime — he was holding a sign outside an abortion clinic.  . . . with a Bible verse on it — ‘Thou shalt not kill.’”
The other, Kempling said: “A man by the name of Bill Whatcott, an evangelical Christian who is a licensed practical nurse, was fined $15,000 by his professional association, for protesting against abortion on his own time, and also fined $20,000 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for speaking out against homosexuality.”

Remember when the left preached tolerance? Those days are gone.

Consider also that as many children were brutally murdered by Dr. Kermit Gosnell at his “Women’s Medical Society” abortuary in Philadelphia as were in Newtown, Connecticut. Gosnell’s trial is going on as you read this, but the leftist Mainstream Media is ignoring it as I predicted last month. This gruesome mass murder trial just doesn’t fit the left’s agenda, so for them it’s not even happening.


aliledar said...

Thank you again, Tom. It's an upside down world these days, based on feelings, not facts or biology. I'll bet the Bn won't print this one either, more's the pity!22

Anonymous said...

Opinion. Babble. Your intolerance is just as bad.

Laurie from Bartlett said...

for many, the TRUTH does not exist. It is all relative to how a person feels..not what is right or wrong. 50 million aborted babies is NOT opinion/ is an honest account of a generation lost. God help us!

Amy said...

Thank you for your article.Many people don't share our views on this matter unfortunately. We are not the popular voice.That's ok. I'd rather be popular with the "Big Guy" upstairs than the "big guys" down here.
Bravo for speaking your mind!

Steve said...

For the record, to quote George Costanza, I have an unblemished record of staunch heterosexuality. I haven’t read anything regarding the science of sexuality, so I’ll concede science may not be able to empirically prove sexuality is hereditary. But I will consider the issue from a practical perspective.
As a straight man, my sexuality was never labeled a mental disorder. I haven’t been denied the right to marry or adopt. I haven’t seen a contingent of Senators and Representatives lobby to amend the Constitution to deny me the right to marry. I’ve heard of gay bashing, but I haven’t heard of straight bashing. I know of no programs or institutions designed to correct my sexuality. My heterosexuality wouldn’t have precluded me from serving my country. I never felt the need to come out and declare my heterosexuality. I never had to address a friend’s or relative’s suspicion that I was straight. My heterosexuality was never called unnatural and a sin against God. I was never promised eternal damnation for being straight If sexuality is simply a matter of waking up one day and saying, “I think I’m going to be gay today,” or “I think I’m going to be straight today.” why then would anyone willingly choose to be gay? If humans are hard wired to be straight, why would so many force a short circuit of that heterosexual hard wiring just so they could lead a more difficult, challenged and prejudiced life? If we’re biologically programmed to be heterosexual, why would someone force a relationship with someone they’re genuinely not attracted and elect a more difficult life in the process?

Attraction is an extension of a person’s sexuality. We simply have no control of who we’re attracted to. It’s not about weighing the pros and cons. I look at a person, and I’m either instantly attracted to that person or I’m not. Why would someone willing choose a life of swimming against the current when they could just as easily choose a life of floating with the current? From what I can tell, there’s simply no reward or upside to being gay in this country. It doesn’t add up.

Tom McLaughlin said...

"Attraction is an extension of a person’s sexuality. We simply have no control of who we’re attracted to. It’s not about weighing the pros and cons," claims Steve.

It is about weighing the pros and cons -

When you're attracted to one person and married to someone else.

When you're attracted to children.

When you're attracted to your mother.

It is definitely about weighing the pros and cons if you're attracted to your dog.

There was a bill introduced in the Maine Legislature three or four years ago decriminalizing sex with animals. An ordinary-looking guy publicly testified in favor. He'd recently been arrested for fighting with his father with whose dog he was having an affair.

So far, it's still legal to counsel that man should he decide he wants to overcome his urges. I think that's a good thing.

Steve said...

I hate when you guys muddle the discussion with these comparisons. Homosexuality is not a crime. Stop comparing it to some of the most contemptible and loathsome acts our criminal justice system recognizes. Dick Cheney’s daughter and Rob Portmans’ son are not criminals. When I wrote “weighing the pros and cons,” I was referring to the specific attraction we feel for our peers, not these aberrant, perverse impulses that the radical right automatically invoke any time the subject of homosexuality is raised. I work with 100+ other people in my department and was specifically attracted one person. I had no say in the matter. I didn’t weigh the pros and cons of my coworkers’ salaries, heritage, their likes, their dislikes, their favorite bands or movies. I saw Melissa, and said to myself, “I have to get to know her better.” I didn’t decided, “I think I’m going to fall in love with her.” It just happened. I had no say in the matter. If a grown man experiences the same evolution of feeling for another man, is that a crime? If it isn’t, then your examples don’t fit.

Being attracted to kids, animals or family is not attraction. It’s criminal impulse.

Anonymous said...

See the problem with that logic is people who believe that homosexuality is a sin believe that it is an "aberrant, perverse impulse."

You make a good point though about legality. Homosexuality is fine in my mind because it's between two consenting adults. Pedophilia and bestiality are crimes because they involve unequal power. In most of cases of either of those crimes, the child or animal in question has no say in the matter.

Tom McLaughlin said...

We may not have total control over who or what we're attracted to, but there are ways to mitigate perverse attractions and counseling helps. Some attractions are downright malevolent.

We do, however, have control over whether we act on those attractions or not and we're morally and legally responsible for our actions.