Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149191073496

ACLU tells police chiefs that canvassing is protected

Associated Press Oct 10, 2006


RICHMOND, Va. - A run-in between Warrenton police and campaign volunteers opposed to next month's gay marriage referendum prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to urge the state's police chiefs to not interfere with door-to-door political canvassing.

"The right of canvassers to enter onto private property to express their views is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution," the ACLU of Virginia's Kent Willis wrote Tuesday in a letter to 185 police chiefs. "This right trumps any local anti-solicitation ordinance."

The letter stems from a Sept. 23 confrontation between a Warrenton police officer and three volunteers from The Commonwealth Coalition, an organization that is campaigning against the proposed constitutional amendment that bans gay marriages and civil unions.

The officer told the volunteers they were in violation of Warrenton's anti-solicitation ordinance and ordered them to leave the neighborhood, Willis said.

The ACLU maintains that political canvassing that doesn't involve asking for contributions is not solicitation.

"The proper response of police officers to property owners who are merely irritated by the presence of canvassers in their neighborhood is to explain the rights of canvassers, not to demand that the canvassers leave the neighborhood," Willis wrote in the letter.

Police Chief Connie Novak said in an interview that she has not spoken with the officer about the incident.

"The average person doesn't know the difference in the law, and a lot of times they don't want people knocking on their door talking about politics," she said. "If it's a matter of clarifying to my officers, I will certainly do that."

----

Now, I will give you that this appears to be a problem with one particular officer overstepping his authority.

I suggest that it's chilling, nonetheless. It's just one example of authority being abused to manipulate the political process. How are opponents of the ban supposed to get their side of the story told if the police run them out of the neighborhood?

I personally don't enjoy having to answer the door when canvassers hit my neighborhood on various issues, either. But for someone to get so whacked out of shape as to involve the police? If it's a case of a canvasser refusing to leave when asked, then there might be cause, but I don't see where any of the stories reporting on this incident allege such a thing to have taken place.

Scary. Kinda makes you think twice about getting directly involved in a political campaign.

[StrangerWitCandy]

It's a shame we even have to let people know what this amendment is actually doing. I saw some Catholic propaganda the other day saying it was merely defining marriage as "between one man and one woman." Well that's already been done in the state of Virginia; same sex marriage is prohibited. But this amendment is completely unneccessary and would eliminate any sort of partnership benefits or anything for gay couples. So that means if my partner has no health insurance, even if my employer was previously willing to cover him they would now not have the right to do so. Its sickening really, they will do anything merely to cause misery to gay people. The only way they can even get it passed is by dumbing it down for people and essentially lying to them. Its the most extreme anti-gay amendment in the country right now, and I believe its going to pass.

Here's the exact wording:

"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

And for what? What do the supporters of this amendment get from this? Where's the benefit on their end? Its just absurd.

[StrangerWitCandy]

In this state it doesn't surprise me that opposers of the amendment would be treated this way by citizens and law enforcement. VA's got a pretty ugly history with prejudice.

[agentkgb]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: And for what? What do the supporters of this amendment get from this? Where's the benefit on their end? Its just absurd.
It protects their marriages, duh. :roll: I guess it makes them feel like they're special. It reassures them that their interpretation of their faith will be enforced, which it would be.

[F'losrix]

StrangerWitCandy wrote:
Here's the exact wording:

"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

And for what? What do the supporters of this amendment get from this? Where's the benefit on their end? Its just absurd.

Michigan's is pretty bad, too - and it was adopted:

"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Virginia's is definitely more explicit, but ours has been used to sue state employers to end partner benefits. So far they've lost in court twice, though. So we're keeping our fingers and toes crossed, hoping the lower courts are upheld. Of course, even then it wouldn't surprise me if they try for some additional amendment to get them what the first one didn't.

And I agree - this is about making life miserable for gay couples - not about protecting marriage, despite whatever fancy wording they use to make it sound palatable.

[Æ]

The constitution does not authorise nongovernmental protest. Lawmakers and activists can't read, and that's quite sad.

[F'losrix]

Æ wrote: The constitution does not authorise nongovernmental protest. Lawmakers and activists can't read, and that's quite sad.
I'm not clear what you mean; I'm not sure how we suddenly got to the point of calling canvassers protestors??? Or have I misapprehended your intention here?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

F'losrix wrote: And I agree - this is about making life miserable for gay couples - not about protecting marriage, despite whatever fancy wording they use to make it sound palatable.

In another thread, I [shamefully] recited the basic beliefs of these people [which I grew up with]:

The gays are hypocrites as they are destroying the very society that cared for them and brought them up.

...The society has to ostracize these fringe groups [ie: the gays]. That way ... the gays will be punished for their sinful behaviour ... It's a very efficient way as more and more people subscribe to it. If the trends are anything to go by, the US is fertile for doing these works.

The way to do this is to get it done at the grassroots level with gentle family oriented messages. Many are working on such campaigns and I guess we will see the results when the next generation grows up. The current generation has been severely brainwashed by the liberalization of culture. It will probably take a generation or two to repair these damages.

Another one of the things that needs to be encouraged is homeschooling. Clearly, as part of the homosexual agenda, the education system has become a way to extend tolerance towards the sinful behaviour of the gay people and condition people from a young age to accept different people. With more parents homeschooling their children, they are less likely to be thought about tolerating homosexuals. In fact, many parents avoid the topic all together, which is good as children do not become conditioned to accept homosexuality.

Another aspect of the plan should be aimed at universities. As part of the so called "equality", acceptance of abnormal sexual orientations has become part of the university life. As such, there is a need to restore the universities to become places of scholarship and scholars are supposed to be the role models and the future of the society. Through various different campaigns, funding and tenureship should be denied to the morally decadent individuals.

One more aspect of the plan is aimed at private businesses. Companies like Ford claim to be equal opportunity employers. There is a need to push these private corporations to deny employment opportunities to the out of the closet homosexuals in various ways. Indeed, media should be used to prevent people from buying the products of these "equal opportunity" employers.

The last aspect of the plan is to aim at the government to revise definitions of marriage. In addition, equality should not be extended to the sexual orientation.

You know, if there is enough pressure from the moral activists, the morally decadent will be ostracized or severely reduced in their social life.

They [the gays] should be grateful that they are not punished by the government of the US. Unfortunately, if you give these people an inch, they want a mile! Just because they are not punished, they think they can go on degrading a whole nation.

....

----------------

PS: I can't believe that I actually wrote all that. :-| It's sad in a way that I have grown up with this venomous anti-homosexual mindset ... yet, I am confused about it all more than ever ...

[F'losrix]

Looks like I was on hiatus when that thread was in play. So indulge me while I respond from my own perspective, even though you aren't offering it as your current stance:

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: In another thread, I [shamefully] recited the basic beliefs of these people [which I grew up with]:

The gays are hypocrites as they are destroying the very society that cared for them and brought them up.
This is little more than a couple of unsupported assertions; no attempt made to show how gay people are alleged to be hypocrites or destroying the society of which they're a part.

Quote: The society has to ostracize these fringe groups [ie: the gays]. That way ... the gays will be punished for their sinful behaviour ... It's a very efficient way as more and more people subscribe to it. If the trends are anything to go by, the US is fertile for doing these works.
Here we see what's really behind the rest - a zealous desire to punish those perceived as committing some sin.

Quote: The way to do this is to get it done at the grassroots level with gentle family oriented messages. Many are working on such campaigns and I guess we will see the results when the next generation grows up. The current generation has been severely brainwashed by the liberalization of culture. It will probably take a generation or two to repair these damages.
There's nothing gentle about demanding that all society conform to one model of what constitutes a family, nor to assert that those who deviate from that ideal are not, in fact, families, when all of the really important elements (mutual caring and support, nurturing, caregiving, guidance, etc.) exist in configurations that don't comply to such rigid rules. It's an attempt to define a family not according to its purpose, but according to rules that do not guarantee functionality.


Quote: Another one of the things that needs to be encouraged is homeschooling. Clearly, as part of the homosexual agenda, the education system has become a way to extend tolerance towards the sinful behaviour of the gay people and condition people from a young age to accept different people. With more parents homeschooling their children, they are less likely to be thought about tolerating homosexuals. In fact, many parents avoid the topic all together, which is good as children do not become conditioned to accept homosexuality.
Here we get to the crux of the issue - whether we should be a tolerant or an intolerant society. The mistake often made is to read 'tolerant' as 'permissive'. They aren't one & the same. In fact, I would assert that homosexuals do not require society's 'permission' to be who they are and live their lives accordingly. The idea that we should be intolerant of homosexuality as a society stems from this mistaken notion that it is up to society to give or withhold its permission not only to the behavior, but to the the very feelings that contribute to the separate identities of the individuals comprising it.

As for avoiding the topic, that only leads to people being uninformed, which in turn can put them at risk. We the evidence of this in things like teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs. Burying one's head in the sand instead of confronting problems head-on is rarely (if ever) a sustainable solution . Whether or not a society is a just society can be judged by whether it confronts such problems with honesty, or with attempts to shame, ignore, condemn, etc.

Quote: Another aspect of the plan should be aimed at universities. As part of the so called "equality", acceptance of abnormal sexual orientations has become part of the university life. As such, there is a need to restore the universities to become places of scholarship and scholars are supposed to be the role models and the future of the society. Through various different campaigns, funding and tenureship should be denied to the morally decadent individuals.
This is a call for outright discrimination. It presumes that those in the teaching profession who are homosexual all share some common philosophy of indoctrinating their students to adopt 'morally decadent' outlooks, regardless of the subject being taught.

Quote: One more aspect of the plan is aimed at private businesses. Companies like Ford claim to be equal opportunity employers. There is a need to push these private corporations to deny employment opportunities to the out of the closet homosexuals in various ways. Indeed, media should be used to prevent people from buying the products of these "equal opportunity" employers.
Here the effort comes into sharp focus. Now it's not only about punishing, it's about denying gay people the very means to support themselves. Chilling.

Quote: The last aspect of the plan is to aim at the government to revise definitions of marriage. In addition, equality should not be extended to the sexual orientation.

You know, if there is enough pressure from the moral activists, the morally decadent will be ostracized or severely reduced in their social life.
Punitive, indeed. But what does it accomplish? It doesn't eliminate homosexuality, merely makes those who are thus oriented suffer. The catch to this, which so many people miss, is that when one group of individuals within a society are made to suffer such stark disadvantage, the other members of society are likely to end up the victims of their own vindictiveness in the long run. Ostracizing and punishing doesn't remove the 'offending' party from society, unless you propose to exterminate them. An ugly thought, indeed.

Quote: They [the gays] should be grateful that they are not punished by the government of the US. Unfortunately, if you give these people an inch, they want a mile! Just because they are not punished, they think they can go on degrading a whole nation.
And we come full circle, with another unsupported assertion - no attempt made to show how the existence of gay people in a society 'degrades a whole nation'. This is hyperbole and should be dismissed outright. I forget who first characterized it this way, but it amounts to 'moral masturbation' - gaining a perverse enjoyment from being riled up and upsetting others, with so-called 'moral values' as the launching pad.

Quote: PS: I can't believe that I actually wrote all that. :-| It's sad in a way that I have grown up with this venomous anti-homosexual mindset ... yet, I am confused about it all more than ever ...
That you recognize it as venomous is a step in the right direction. Being 'raised that way' isn't really a valid excuse. Nor is confusion, really. Are you your own person, or does your mind belong to someone else? If you're very confused, it's probably because you're trying to arrive at some conclusion without really breaking the complex arguments down into singular statements that can be objectively evaluated and accepted/rejected. If you're doing a proper job of it, you'll have to explore a lot more than just one aspect of an issue - you have to first answer for yourself what you consider to be the basis of morality, justice, etc. You can get ideas about those things both by reading the works of respected philosophers and from well-informed individuals around you. But in the end you have to make up your own mind what fits and what doesn't, and you shouldn't let yourself become fearful of being wrong or having to rethink your positions.

No one has all the answers or perfect solutions, despite the attempts of some to pretend otherwise.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

F'losrix wrote: Looks like I was on hiatus when that thread was in play. So indulge me while I respond from my own perspective, even though you aren't offering it as your current stance:

I don't think you were on hiatus. I think you stayed out of it alltogether. The whole thing started with me making an initial sarcastic post in response to an anti-gay poster and then the next I knew was that I had people rushing in to respond to my sarcastic post [they probably were thinking that I really meant the point I was making]. And I thought what the heck, I'd just go along with it ...

Anyhow, I'm going to reply to the points you are making [though I don't really believe a single word that I am typing]:

F'losrix wrote: This is little more than a couple of unsupported assertions; no attempt made to show how gay people are alleged to be hypocrites or destroying the society of which they're a part.

This claim is based on both faith and reason:
1- Biblical stories of Sodom and Gomorrah and the traditional interpretations and rationalizations that surround it teach us that homosexuality is an act that even God/Allah/YHWH/etc has condemned. Indeed, in almost all religions, homosexuals are treated with outmost contempt if not with severe physical punishments.

2- Another basis of this claim lies in the fact that various minorities are pushing to bring their deviant behaviours into the mainstream. Such act will cause tensions in the society and create conflict in the society. Deviant behaviours such as homosexuality create smaller societies within the larger society. Indeed, "gay areas" within large cities is a testament to the construction of these enclaves where immoral and deviant people gather to participate in their deviant behaviour without fear of the authorities.

F'losrix wrote: Quote: The society has to ostracize these fringe groups [ie: the gays]. That way ... the gays will be punished for their sinful behaviour ... It's a very efficient way as more and more people subscribe to it. If the trends are anything to go by, the US is fertile for doing these works.

Here we see what's really behind the rest - a zealous desire to punish those perceived as committing some sin.

Indeed, this is aimed to create a climate to prevent more people from being convinced that they can be publicly homosexual and by doing so, we can ensure that the deviant behaviour does not become acceptable within the larger society.

F'losrix wrote: Quote: The way to do this is to get it done at the grassroots level with gentle family oriented messages. Many are working on such campaigns and I guess we will see the results when the next generation grows up. The current generation has been severely brainwashed by the liberalization of culture. It will probably take a generation or two to repair these damages.

There's nothing gentle about demanding that all society conform to one model of what constitutes a family, nor to assert that those who deviate from that ideal are not, in fact, families, when all of the really important elements (mutual caring and support, nurturing, caregiving, guidance, etc.) exist in configurations that don't comply to such rigid rules. It's an attempt to define a family not according to its purpose, but according to rules that do not guarantee functionality.

It is gentle because it allows people to work in harmony and be protected from deviant models that create tensions within the society. In a society that does not condone homosexuality, there is no need for any governmental recognition of the rights of homosexuals and the courts, schools, and other government agencies could be freed up to pursue more important matters like concentrating on educating children, catching criminals, etc. Wasting time protecting deviant and immoral acts of homosexuals is an injustice to all the moral people.

F'losrix wrote: Quote: Another one of the things that needs to be encouraged is homeschooling. Clearly, as part of the homosexual agenda, the education system has become a way to extend tolerance towards the sinful behaviour of the gay people and condition people from a young age to accept different people. With more parents homeschooling their children, they are less likely to be thought about tolerating homosexuals. In fact, many parents avoid the topic all together, which is good as children do not become conditioned to accept homosexuality.

Here we get to the crux of the issue - whether we should be a tolerant or an intolerant society. The mistake often made is to read 'tolerant' as 'permissive'. They aren't one & the same. In fact, I would assert that homosexuals do not require society's 'permission' to be who they are and live their lives accordingly. The idea that we should be intolerant of homosexuality as a society stems from this mistaken notion that it is up to society to give or withhold its permission not only to the behavior, but to the the very feelings that contribute to the separate identities of the individuals comprising it.

Homosexuals may not require society's "permission" to engage in their sinful and anti-social behaviour, but they will think twice before acting on their immoral urges to be with a member of the same-sex when they realize they face extreme marginalization.

F'losrix wrote: As for avoiding the topic, that only leads to people being uninformed, which in turn can put them at risk. We the evidence of this in things like teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs. Burying one's head in the sand instead of confronting problems head-on is rarely (if ever) a sustainable solution . Whether or not a society is a just society can be judged by whether it confronts such problems with honesty, or with attempts to shame, ignore, condemn, etc.

A just society subscribes to higher moral standards. Indeed, civilized people are civilized because they subscribed to higher moral standards and strive to become a better society by working together. As part of this collective refinement, immorals and perverts have to be repressed because their deviant behaviours create various problems for the society and become an obstacle in striving for living a moral life by demanding acceptance and a place in the mainstream.

F'losrix wrote: Quote: Another aspect of the plan should be aimed at universities. As part of the so called "equality", acceptance of abnormal sexual orientations has become part of the university life. As such, there is a need to restore the universities to become places of scholarship and scholars are supposed to be the role models and the future of the society. Through various different campaigns, funding and tenureship should be denied to the morally decadent individuals.

This is a call for outright discrimination. It presumes that those in the teaching profession who are homosexual all share some common philosophy of indoctrinating their students to adopt 'morally decadent' outlooks, regardless of the subject being taught.

Unfortunately, within the academic world, it is not just the homosexual instructors who are indoctrinating their students. It seems the left wing heterosexuals (those God hating athiest communists) have become increasingly active in promoting homosexuality as an acceptable behaviour. Such individuals are not homosexual, but they are morally decadent and are part of the larger homosexual agenda.

F'losrix wrote: Quote: One more aspect of the plan is aimed at private businesses. Companies like Ford claim to be equal opportunity employers. There is a need to push these private corporations to deny employment opportunities to the out of the closet homosexuals in various ways. Indeed, media should be used to prevent people from buying the products of these "equal opportunity" employers.

Here the effort comes into sharp focus. Now it's not only about punishing, it's about denying gay people the very means to support themselves. Chilling.

This is aimed to prevent homosexuals from using any means to move into the mainstream. Using private business to deny them acceptance of their moral decadence is a necessary tool in protecting the larger society from these sinners.

F'losrix wrote: Quote: The last aspect of the plan is to aim at the government to revise definitions of marriage. In addition, equality should not be extended to the sexual orientation.

You know, if there is enough pressure from the moral activists, the morally decadent will be ostracized or severely reduced in their social life.

Punitive, indeed. But what does it accomplish? It doesn't eliminate homosexuality, merely makes those who are thus oriented suffer.

These methods might not eliminate homosexuality. However, it will prevent homosexuals from moving into the mainstream and gain acceptance for their dangerous ways.

F'losrix wrote: The catch to this, which so many people miss, is that when one group of individuals within a society are made to suffer such stark disadvantage, the other members of society are likely to end up the victims of their own vindictiveness in the long run. Ostracizing and punishing doesn't remove the 'offending' party from society, unless you propose to exterminate them. An ugly thought, indeed.

No, the society will not suffer from taking a higher moral ground. It will only benefit from this as homosexuals will not get the chance to come into the public with their moral disease. Of course, those who require assistance in overcoming their moral disease will be helped through various means. Otherwise, a life of despair awaits them.

F'losrix wrote: Quote: They [the gays] should be grateful that they are not punished by the government of the US. Unfortunately, if you give these people an inch, they want a mile! Just because they are not punished, they think they can go on degrading a whole nation.

And we come full circle, with another unsupported assertion - no attempt made to show how the existence of gay people in a society 'degrades a whole nation'. This is hyperbole and should be dismissed outright. I forget who first characterized it this way, but it amounts to 'moral masturbation' - gaining a perverse enjoyment from being riled up and upsetting others, with so-called 'moral values' as the launching pad.

Unfortunately, many people do believe in such things and give up their beliefs easily.

F'losrix wrote: Quote: PS: I can't believe that I actually wrote all that. :-| It's sad in a way that I have grown up with this venomous anti-homosexual mindset ... yet, I am confused about it all more than ever ...

That you recognize it as venomous is a step in the right direction. Being 'raised that way' isn't really a valid excuse. Nor is confusion, really. Are you your own person, or does your mind belong to someone else? If you're very confused, it's probably because you're trying to arrive at some conclusion without really breaking the complex arguments down into singular statements that can be objectively evaluated and accepted/rejected. If you're doing a proper job of it, you'll have to explore a lot more than just one aspect of an issue - you have to first answer for yourself what you consider to be the basis of morality, justice, etc. You can get ideas about those things both by reading the works of respected philosophers and from well-informed individuals around you. But in the end you have to make up your own mind what fits and what doesn't, and you shouldn't let yourself become fearful of being wrong or having to rethink your positions.

No one has all the answers or perfect solutions, despite the attempts of some to pretend otherwise.

Well, I am not confused because of these arguments because I know them well enough to be able to articulate many counter arguments and make counter arguments to those counter arguments, etc.

Rather, I am more confused because I am questioning my own sexuality and I am surrounded by people who do believe in some of the BS that I have just written. So, it makes for a confusing situation if you know what I mean.

[F'losrix]

Forging ahead with the exercise, then. When I say 'you' below, I don't mean you the poster, but the fictitious debater the comments represent:

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: This claim is based on both faith and reason:
1- Biblical stories of Sodom and Gomorrah and the traditional interpretations and rationalizations that surround it teach us that homosexuality is an act that even God/Allah/YHWH/etc has condemned. Indeed, in almost all religions, homosexuals are treated with outmost contempt if not with severe physical punishments.
Sounds like a good argument for getting rid of religion. (mostly j/k)

Quote: 2- Another basis of this claim lies in the fact that various minorities are pushing to bring their deviant behaviours into the mainstream. Such act will cause tensions in the society and create conflict in the society. Deviant behaviours such as homosexuality create smaller societies within the larger society. Indeed, "gay areas" within large cities is a testament to the construction of these enclaves where immoral and deviant people gather to participate in their deviant behaviour without fear of the authorities.
As if the attempt to push gay people out of the mainstream won't create greater tension?

As for smaller societies within larger societies, I could largely say the same for religion or a number of other factors. People tend to form smaller societies based on shared beliefs and goals. This sounds more and more like a fascist plan to eliminate diversity, and if your end goal is an end to cultural tensions, you're going to have to eliminate religious diversity as well.

Quote: Indeed, this is aimed to create a climate to prevent more people from being convinced that they can be publicly homosexual and by doing so, we can ensure that the deviant behaviour does not become acceptable within the larger society.
So how did we get where we are today, since this is exactly the way gay people were formerly treated?

Quote: It is gentle because it allows people to work in harmony and be protected from deviant models that create tensions within the society. In a society that does not condone homosexuality, there is no need for any governmental recognition of the rights of homosexuals and the courts, schools, and other government agencies could be freed up to pursue more important matters like concentrating on educating children, catching criminals, etc. Wasting time protecting deviant and immoral acts of homosexuals is an injustice to all the moral people.
Unrealistic and overly simplistic. People won't work in harmony just because they're repressed, suppressed and oppressed.

Quote: Homosexuals may not require society's "permission" to engage in their sinful and anti-social behaviour, but they will think twice before acting on their immoral urges to be with a member of the same-sex when they realize they face extreme marginalization.
Maybe some will, but not most. Orientation is much stronger than you apparently realize. All you do is drive them back underground - you won't stop them from being gay and acting upon it. Or worse - you'll persuade them to enter into heterosexual marriages with disastrous results.

Quote: A just society subscribes to higher moral standards. Indeed, civilized people are civilized because they subscribed to higher moral standards and strive to become a better society by working together. As part of this collective refinement, immorals and perverts have to be repressed because their deviant behaviours create various problems for the society and become an obstacle in striving for living a moral life by demanding acceptance and a place in the mainstream.
You have a strange idea of what represents justice. There is nothing civilized about oppressing a minority you don't like just because your religion teaches you to perceive them as immoral.

As for obstacles, all you're really doing is erecting a set of them for one group of people so that you can maintain your illusions. THat isn't moral or civilized at all - it's outright selfishness.

Quote: Unfortunately, within the academic world, it is not just the homosexual instructors who are indoctrinating their students. It seems the left wing heterosexuals (those God hating athiest communists) have become increasingly active in promoting homosexuality as an acceptable behaviour. Such individuals are not homosexual, but they are morally decadent and are part of the larger homosexual agenda.
Where can I get a copy of this 'agenda'? What you describe as 'moral decadence', I consider promoting tolerance to create a more harmonius world. The source of disharmony is people who want to oppress others.

Quote: This is aimed to prevent homosexuals from using any means to move into the mainstream. Using private business to deny them acceptance of their moral decadence is a necessary tool in protecting the larger society from these sinners.
It's aimed at creating a subset of society that will be economically disadvantaged to satisfy a selfish desire to fight what you perceive to be 'moral decadence'. It's beyond arrogant for you to demand that your beliefs about morality should trump everyone else's.

Quote: These methods might not eliminate homosexuality. However, it will prevent homosexuals from moving into the mainstream and gain acceptance for their dangerous ways.
If they're such a 'danger', why not just throw them all in jail and/or make it an offense punishble by death?

Quote: No, the society will not suffer from taking a higher moral ground. It will only benefit from this as homosexuals will not get the chance to come into the public with their moral disease. Of course, those who require assistance in overcoming their moral disease will be helped through various means. Otherwise, a life of despair awaits them.
Again, unrealistic. Society will suffer, just as it always has under such oppressive measures. Families will be ripped apart.

[F'losrix]

Quote: Well, I am not confused because of these arguments because I know them well enough to be able to articulate many counter arguments and make counter arguments to those counter arguments, etc.

Rather, I am more confused because I am questioning my own sexuality and I am surrounded by people who do believe in some of the BS that I have just written. So, it makes for a confusing situation if you know what I mean.

I do. The thing to remember is that your sexuality is your own. It doesn't belong to anyone else, and it's not anyone else's place to tell you what you should or shouldn't feel - and I mean that not only for those who are against homosexuality, but also for those who would think they can help you by trying to talk you into adopting the label of 'gay' or 'bi' for yourself. Every person's situation is unique, and the labels are somewhat arbitrary - an imperfect attempt to categorize or describe something that isn't neatly defined in black & white terms and has some fluidity.

I wish you well in the endeavor to discover the reality of who you are. Resist others attempts to mold you into their vision of who they think you should be. Don't resist being who you really are - only you can discover who that person is, and it's a lifelong process. It doesn't matter if everything isn't perfectly clear - don't expect your sexuality to come in some tidy package with a card describing the contents. It just doesn't work that way.

I hope you find that helpful and not condescending. Chances are you already understand a lot of what I'm saying anyway.

[John Galt]

I would say door-to-door canvassing is solicitation. Why else would they be there if not to solicit something?

If there is some ordinance against solitictation in a particular neighborhood then you can't go there.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: I would say door-to-door canvassing is solicitation. Why else would they be there if not to solicit something?

If there is some ordinance against solitictation in a particular neighborhood then you can't go there.
My understanding is that the specific law in question only applies to acts of solicitation where some monetary exchange is requested.

[John Galt]

F'losrix wrote: John Galt wrote: I would say door-to-door canvassing is solicitation. Why else would they be there if not to solicit something?

If there is some ordinance against solitictation in a particular neighborhood then you can't go there.
My understanding is that the specific law in question only applies to acts of solicitation where some monetary exchange is requested.

No that is incorrect.

Chapter 13 SOLICITORS

Sec. 13-1. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Charitable organization: Any person which is or holds itself out to be organized or operated for any charitable purpose, or any person which solicits or obtains contributions solicited from the public. This definition shall not be deemed to include:
(1) Any church or convention or association of churches, primarily operated for nonsecular purposes and no part of the net income of which inures to the direct benefit of any individual;
(2) Any political party as defined in Code of Virginia, section 24.1-1 or any political campaign committee required by state or federal law to file a report or statement of contributions and expenditures;
(3) Any labor union registered under Code of Virginia, section 40.1-76 nor any trade association;
(4) Any authorized individual who solicits, by authority of such organization, solely on behalf of a registered or exempt charitable organization or on behalf of an organization excluded from the definition of charitable organization.
Charitable purpose: Any charitable, benevolent, humane, philanthropic, patriotic, or eleemosynary purpose and the purposes of influencing legislation or influencing the actions of any public official or instigating, prosecuting, or intervening in litigation.
Sale, sell and sold: The transfer of any property or the rendition of any service to any person in exchange for consideration, including any purported contribution without which such property would not have been transferred or such services would not have been rendered.
Solicit and solicitation: The request or appeal, directly or indirectly, for any contribution on the plea or representation that such contribution will be used for a charitable purpose, including, without limitation, the following methods of requesting such contribution:
(1) Any oral or written request;
(2) Any announcement to the press, over the radio or television, or by telephone or telegraph concerning an appeal or campaign to which the public is requested to make a contribution for any charitable purpose connected therewith;
(3) The distribution, circulation, posting or publishing of any handbill written advertisement or other publication which directly or by implication seeks to obtain public support;
(4) The sale of, offer or attempt to sell, any advertisement, advertising space, subscription, ticket, or any service or tangible item in connection with which any appeal is made for any charitable purpose or where the name of any charitable organization is used or referred to in any such appeal as an inducement or reason for making any such sale, or when or where in connection with any such sale, any statement is made that the whole or any part of the proceeds from any such sale will be donated to any charitable purpose.
Solicitation, as defined herein, shall be deemed to occur when the request is made, at the place the request is received, whether or not the person making the same actually receives any contribution.
Solicitor: A person who goes from door to door visiting multi-family or single-family dwellings for the following purposes:
(1) To sell any goods, wares, merchandise or services or accept subscriptions or orders therefor.
(2) To accept or request donations for any charitable purpose.
(Code 1981, §§ 13-1, 13-2)


Sec. 13-2. Exceptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to:
(1) Any person who visits any residence or apartment at the request or invitation of the owner or occupant thereof.
(2) To unpaid members of any civic or charitable organization who have an approved means of identification provided by the organization represented.
(3) Persons selling, or soliciting subscriptions to any newspaper for home delivery.
(4) Route deliverymen who make deliveries at least once a week to regular customers and whose solicitation is only incidental to their regular deliveries.
(5) Persons selling fresh farm products.
(6) Persons licensed under the provisions of Title 38.2 of the Code of Virginia.
(7) Charitable organizations that have registered with the state commissioner of agriculture and consumer services or his designee as provided by law, but the names of such organizations' solicitors shall be registered pursuant to this chapter.

Sec. 13-3. Registration required.
All persons, before entering into or upon residential premises within the town for the purpose of soliciting, shall register with the chief of police and furnish him with the following information:
(1) The name, local and permanent addresses, age, race, weight, height, color of hair and eyes and any other distinguishing physical characteristics of the applicant.
(2) The nature or purpose for which solicitations will be made and the nature of the goods, wares, merchandise or services offered for sale.
(3) The name and permanent address of the employer or organization represented.
(4) A statement as to whether the applicant has been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor and, if so, the nature of the offense, when and where convicted and the penalty or punishment assessed therefor.


Sec. 13-4. Permit--Required.
It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in soliciting funds for any charitable, philanthropic, educational or other like purpose, in and upon the streets of the town or in any public place within the town, unless he shall first have obtained a permit therefor from the chief of police.



Town of Warrenton Va. Ordinances

And so, as you can see, they broke the law (note the bolded parts) if they were soliciting without a permit. And you claim they are being singled out with nothing to say that other solictors without permits were not being told by the police to stop breaking the law.

I have an issue with the ACLU claiming that AND I QUOTE, "The right of canvassers to enter onto private property to express their views is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution". THAT is not in the Constitution. NOTHING of the sort is. I am VERY disturbed by this issue.

This man from the ACLU clearly has not read the Constitution.

[F'losrix]

John:

I see that you're correct and I was mistaken.

Question: Do we know for certain that they hadn't registered and were soliciting without a permit?

Edit: And I'll agree that I think the ACLU's claim here that the First Amendment trumps anti-solicitation laws is suspect.

[John Galt]

F'losrix wrote: John:

I see that you're correct and I was mistaken.

Question: Do we know for certain that they hadn't registered and were soliciting without a permit?

Edit: And I'll agree that I think the ACLU's claim here that the First Amendment trumps anti-solicitation laws is suspect.

I suppose I don't, but I think can assume they didn't since they got the ACLU to argue for them that the solicitation law was illegal.

I'm glad you agree here. The Constitution was never meant to trump the rights of private citizens, forcing them to allow other people to come talk to them on their own private property... it only has to do with government allowing and disallowing speech. As much as I like free speech, I like peace and quiet on my property better.