In a last-ditch effort to sway voters away from Virginia 's GOP ticket, the
Washington Post unleashed a stinging op-ed against Ken Cuccinelli, the pro-family candidate for state Attorney General. Desperate to get its dig in before next Tuesday, the
Post lashed out in "
Mr. Cuccinelli's bigotry," an article that tried to paint Ken's conservative social views as "an embarrassment to Virginia." According to the
Post, Cuccinelli's biggest
crime is describing
homosexuality as "intrinsically wrong." In an
interview with a local paper, Ken also said, "I happen to think that [
homosexuals] represent... behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society."
The
Post's hostility is mind-boggling when you consider that Cuccinelli's statement happens to be true, given the data on the
health risks of homosexual conduct. As for his personal faith, if the editors believe that Ken's views disqualify him from public office, then he's not the one practicing bigotry. The dictionary defines it as "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own"--something that more accurately describes the
Washington Post's attack than Cuccinelli's comments.
Unfortunately, this editorial is as good an illustration as any of the direction the homosexual agenda is taking us--toward simply silencing any criticism of homosexual conduct. It's a new liberal standard where people (and politicians) are no longer entitled to their own opinions unless they're shared by the radical Left. These activists are intimidating people easily now, but soon they'll have the force of the federal
government on their side through "
hate crimes" laws, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and other policies.
If we don't work quickly to stop them, there will be no end to the persecution of principle. Sadly, this is a possibility that Mainers understand all too well. As they fight to preserve
marriage, the other side is going to great lengths to terrorize conservatives. Just yesterday, we learned that one of
Stand for Marriage Maine's allies, Don Mendell, has come under attack by homosexuals who have requested that his counseling license be revoked--simply because he appeared in an
ad defending marriage. And if Question 1 loses, Don won't be the first victim. That's why next Tuesday is so important. In the end, these
elections are about more than protecting marriage. They're about preserving
free speech and religious liberty. Don't let the opportunity pass by without a fight!
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
OPINION:Washington Post Helps Spread "Homosexual Agenda"
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
intrinsically
Thanks FRC... I was unaware that Ken Cuccinelli was a nutter! Now I'll be sure not to vote for him on Tuesday.
His views are bigoted... there is nothing 'intrinsically wrong with homosexual acts'.
Further I like how the FRC continues their continued pattern of misrepresentation and exaggeration by claiming that the expansion of the hate crime regulations to include orientation will lead to persecution.
- MrBook
November 2, 2009 5:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Speaking of nutters....
FRC is spreading quite a LOT of nutter around these days, are they not?
FRC, your continued plying of your " homosexuality is unhealthy" lies is getting really tiresome. For this 48-year-old woman in a nearly 19-year partnership to her loving spouse, being in a loving gay marriage has been nothing BUT healthy and positive. It certainly has not shortened my life or caused me any discernible health issues.
Get another gig, you guys. The old one is wearing REALLY thin.
- Babaroni
November 2, 2009 8:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So...
According to the FRC "bigotry" is speaking up against those who hold a view other than your own and that means that since anti-homosexual opinions are "views", then being anti-homophobe is bigotry... I'm trying to summarize a logical outcome that shows how anti-homosexual speach and "views" are NOT bigotry, but counter speach is... I'm coming up short, can anyone else explain how anti-homophobia is bigotry but anti- homosexuality is not?
I think the problem is what I call "permanant juvenile logic syndrome". It is caused by a cognitve failure to increase the functionality of your logical mind. Our representation here is that the sufferrer of PJLS is unable to understand why showing that someone is worse than they are is not an acceptable innocense plea. It usually, as shown here, starts with the argument itself in that the comparison itself is a logical fallacy. This example assumes that "if I define my position as a viewpoint, then it's not bigotry, and if I define you as attacking my viewpoint, then you are the bigot"
I think it's a minor of special pleading, but it could aslo be described as a moving goalpost whereas the sufferrer just redefines reality to make him/herself look like an angel, when they are really the antagonist.
Clearly, the FRC is suffering from a condition called "cognitive dissonance"
Eh, whatever, there is no syndrome, they aren't cognitively dissonant... They know exactly why they don't use logic: it would hurt their cause!
- Rice klowN
November 2, 2009 2:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.