Court TV and The ACLU
Posted on April 7, 2006
Ok, it’s time to write Court TV about airing the ACLU’s new 10-part series, Freedom Files. On April 15, they will be bemoaning the fact that gay couples are not the same as straight ones. The truth is gay couples are not the normal family environment and do not provide the desired examples that are needed to raise children in a correct social setting. The fact that gay couples cannot procreate is ample evidence to show why the whole situation is unnatural. You may be able to fool the ninth circus court because they are fools, but you can’t fool mother nature. Anthony Romero, the gay Executive Director of the ACLU wants to convince you otherwise. I wonder why?
At the same time I learned about this Court TV fiasco, I also read that there are new statistics that San Francisco has the highest percentage of gay men among major cities in the world, with a quarter of them HIV-positive. Is this a lifestyle for children to be raised in?
Write to Court TV and demand that this type of propaganda be stopped. If they will not listen, then write to your cable or satellite provider and ask them to drop Court TV. It is time that this one sided, prejudicial, gay agenda promoting assault on our families be stopped.
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
18 Responses to “Court TV and The ACLU”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
What exactly is this gay agenda I keep hearing about? Is that the thing where the homosexuals and their sympathizers want, like, equal rights, tolerance, and understanding? How dare they ask to be treated the same as everyone else! This is AMERICA for Chrissakes!
Homosexuality is perfectly natural. It’s been observed in hundreds of species across the animal kingdom. It’s not an illness. It’s not a choice. It happens. Just because they can’t procreate doesn’t mean it’s not natural. Your conclusion is a non sequitur.
And what are these “desired examples” that we need to properly raise children? Caveat: You’re not allowed to use the following words in your response: Jesus, Christian, God, heterosexual (or any of its forms or synonyms), tradition (or any of its forms or synonyms), family values. And please explain the “correct social setting” part as well. Same caveat applies.
That would be… “We’re gay and we’re going to shove it down your throat (no pun intended) whether you like it or not”… and… “We’re going to teach your kids how natural it is to be gay no matter what you think or what your values may be.”
We’ve had this argument before and yes it IS a choice. Or a preference. Just like any other choice you make in life. To call it natural is just a way to justify it.
And don’t say “we don’t need to justify it” because that’s exactly what you’re doing with the whole animal kindom analogy, and the gay marches and the “we just need to teach everyone” theory.
I have to say, if you take all of those things out of a family you have dysfunction. I mean, you want to take “family values” out of family? Are you serious?
That’s why we don’t want gay couples raising our kids because most gay people seem to think that there’s no such thing as standards and traditions. Furthermore, they fail to put the childs’ best interest before their sexuallity.
You’re probably going to bring up the fact that there are dysfuctional hetrosexual families. So. Does that make it ok to be dysfunctional?
Wow, this is the first I have heard of this. I have always watched Court TV on high profile cases, but lately I haven’t been viewing…just Nancy Grace at night some during the week.
I do not see where Court TV has any business airing anything for the ACLU. This is ridiculous…(shaking my head)….This makes no sense to support a group that defends criminals…duh? aside for the gay marriage/adoption issue. DISGUSTED….
P.S. Just posted also about the ACLU and the Minute Men.
This gay agenda sounds a lot like the black agenda we saw 50 years ago. Or that women’s agenda in the early 20th century. Some things never change, huh? What is it with people wanting to be treated fairly and equally?
I don’t remember being offered a choice as to my sexuality. Was that supposed to happen on my thirteenth birthday? I feel robbed that I didn’t get to choose. I wish we had a real live gay person or someone from the American Psychological Association here to tell you differently. But then again, what do gay people know about being gay, and what do psychologists know about psychology?
“Family values” is an entirely subjective term, and it is therefore useless. My defintion of “family values” could include giving my kids heroin and crack. (Fortunately that’s not the case
)It’s just one of those catchphrases that pundits like to use to appeal to our emotions.
CaptainRational, to answer your question about desired family structure, avoiding all those terms, one just has to look at psychological studies. There is a myriad of them that conclude that without a strong Father (male) figure and a strong Mother (female) figure in the household then the chance for the child to have psychological or developmental problems increases substantially.
I know a few gays. If it weren’t for knowing them for years I probably wouldn’t be able to tell they were gay if I just randomly encountered them. I don’t realy approve of homosexuality, but I’ve got no problem with them as individuals. It’s the ones who push the “gay agenda” of “look at me, I’m gay, accept me and LIKE what I do or you’re EEEEVIL” people that annoy me.
Captain irrational, what makes you think you can come here to a blog that does not belong to you, and set the standards of a debate? There are many folks that believe those terms are very relevant in the debate, just like you feel so strongly that gays are ok.
“The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote,” quoting Jesse Jackson in an address at Harvard Law School.
There is no point even engaging anyone comparing the gay situation to the Black civil rights movement. Where are the “Ben Gay” laws. When has it been a crime for gays to learn to read and write or use the same water fountain as straight people?
This nonsense is just more desperate drivel from the smug, pseudo-intellectual, liberal artsy crowd, suffering from delusions of adequacy.
RanbaRal: All the studies I’ve seen support the idea that homosexuals are just as capable of raising healthy children as are heterosexuals. The APA has a number of articles on this.
Jay: My statements were strictly rhetorical. I’m just pointing out that we all have different notions of what constitutes a proper environment for raising children.
Bob: The black civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement are similar in that both groups were/are trying to obtain civil rights that are being denied. That blacks had to endure more heinous attacks is beside the point.
What civil right are gays being denied?
Go down one by one in the bill of rights.
Civil rights go far beyond the Bill of Rights.
Same-sex marriage bans, denial of marriage-related benefits, adoption prohibitions, numerous cases of discrimination. Those are the biggies I can think of off the top of my head.
What Blacks have had to endure is exactly the point in debunking this comparison. Someone saying it doesn’t matter will not make it so. This has been an ongoing tactic of the gay movement to elevate their cause to the level of horrific racial discrimination. It is part of their strategy to hyperbolize their issues by liking it with words like “heinous attacks.”
Society has the right and the duty to regulate marriage. One may disagree but that doesn’t make their opinion superior or correct.
We are not allowed to marry our parents, siblings, children, multiple partners or people of the same sex. Some may disagree with these laws but the laws are the same for us all.
Those laws apply to everyone equally. If I want to marry my dog and the law doesn’t allow it, that does not mean I am being discriminated against. It only means society does not condone my aberrant behavior.
A civil rights violation is a civil rights violation, plain and simple. If you’d like to hear from someone familiar with the black civil rights movement on the gay civil rights movement, check out Coretta Scott King: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Coretta_Scott_King.
What is this duty you speak of? How does two people who love each other getting married affect anyone other than those two people?
I think any adult(s) should be able to marry any other adult(s) so long as there is consent of everyone involved. It’s funny, but you’re the second one to bring up dog marriage in the last week or so I’ve been discussing this issue. If your dog were capable of giving consent to marry, I’d say go for it! Maybe when dogs evolve a little more they will be able to, but for now, they can’t.
And the majority should not be able to discriminate against the minority, no matter how small the minority. That’s one of the beauties of our Constitution.
If people cannot or will not comprehend how the moral integrity and stability of the family unit directly relates to our society, culture and civilization, no one can help them.
They will continue to mentally masturbate their way through their maze of moral relativism, feeling highly satisfied about themselves.
Maybe, someday, when they arrive at a place even they find disgusting, they will remember these stops along the road.
You have a pretty verbose way of saying that “gay people are icky” and “people who want gays to have equal rights are morons.” Instead of couching your feelings in semantics, won’t you tell me how you really feel about gay people?
Bob: you’re right — like many societies, our society *is* arranged around the family unit.
However, please note that it is perfectly legal for a straight man and woman to marry and never procreate. Are they shunned for being “unnatural” even though the sex they have does not produce children?
While we’re on that subject, it is worth noting that a woman can only get pregnant during one short stretch of days out of each month. Is it disgusting or unnatural for a woman to have sex on the other days, since it is then impossible for her to conceive? Should we discourage that, too?
Now,you’re reduced to attempting to place your own vicious words in my mouth. And there is no way I would ever use the word “icky”. Still, it makes one wonder…
I was trying to tell you nicely that our little chat was over because I was weary of your left wing prattle.
But, since you want to know how I really feel: You’re just another silly character in the liberal clown corps with nothing to offer but the party line of sophomoric talking points.
However, don’t think I don’t wish you well because I am letting Santa know about that naughty cabin boy the Captain secretly wants for Christmas.
Please, procreation is not a requirement of marriage but marriage exists to protect the children should they result.
If the days a woman could conceive were as easy to predict as you imply, the Catholic Church would have had an easier time selling the rhythm method as a means of natural birth control.
You did use the word “disgusting”, and I merely applied its synonym, “icky”. And you have called me a lot of things that add up to your notion of a moron I do believe. I don’t think I’m being unfair. If you don’t think I’m a moron, let me know and I’ll retract that statement.
I’m pretty positive that I’m not a member of any political party, so I don’t know which party line I’m offering. My opinions are mine alone, and I speak for no one but myself.
Did you just call me gay? Well you know what you are? A CHAIR! How does that feel? (See, I take as much offense at you calling me gay as you do at me calling you a chair.) Honestly, a gay joke?