I took a look at what the FRC is, too. This from their web site:
Family Research Council (FRC) was founded in 1983 as an organization dedicated to the promotion of marriage and family and the sanctity of human life in national policy. Through books, pamphlets, media appearances, public events, debates and testimony, FRC's team of experienced policy experts review data and analyze proposals that impact family law and policy in Congress and the executive branch.FRC also strives to assure that the unique attributes of the family are recognized and respected through the decisions of the courts and regulatory bodies.
I'm a reasonable bloke and that looks reasonable to me. Stated like that I can see no-one who could possibly argue against them, just like no-one can possibly argue against the US PATRIOT Act. Both have great names. I expect that's why Jeep has a Patriot model today, too. Great names inspire great loyalty. I like their mission statement, too:
Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.
Well, not all of it. The Judeo-Christian thing looks ominous. But so far it looks like an organisation that I, as a dad, would support, probably consider joining and donating cash to. Anything that supports good old family values must be good, eh?
I'm a good dad. She Who Must Be Obeyed is a good mum. And we raised a fine son who accepts and celebrates difference. We love him unconditionally. We raised him to be moral, tolerant, and non judgmental. And we knew that, should he have the mixed fortune to be gay, like his dad, we would still love him and support him and welcome his partner into our home, too. And we told him so when he was twelve years old. He's lucky. He happens to be heterosexual. But, had he not been, he woudl still be part of our family.
So imagine my distaste when I turned to the FRC's page about homosexuality:
Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.
Well, not all of it. The Judeo-Christian thing looks ominous. But so far it looks like an organisation that I, as a dad, would support, probably consider joining and donating cash to. Anything that supports good old family values must be good, eh?
I'm a good dad. She Who Must Be Obeyed is a good mum. And we raised a fine son who accepts and celebrates difference. We love him unconditionally. We raised him to be moral, tolerant, and non judgmental. And we knew that, should he have the mixed fortune to be gay, like his dad, we would still love him and support him and welcome his partner into our home, too. And we told him so when he was twelve years old. He's lucky. He happens to be heterosexual. But, had he not been, he woudl still be part of our family.
So imagine my distaste when I turned to the FRC's page about homosexuality:
Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects. While the origins of same-sex attractions may be complex, there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn. We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools. Attempts to join two men or two women in "marriage" constitute a radical redefinition and falsification of the institution, and FRC supports state and federal constitutional amendments to prevent such redefinition by courts or legislatures. Sympathy must be extended to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions, and every effort should be made to assist such persons to overcome those attractions, as many already have.
Whoa! Just another bunch of "Fry the Fag" lobbyists, and ones who want to crucify the poor gay kid and turn him straight - something the doctors acknowledge is impossible. Now I view them as unwholesome. I have resigned my unbought membership and want nothing to do with this bunch of sickos. They sound like the source of teenage suicide, and kids turned out of their homes to live on the streets the second their parents find out they are gay.
The sweet smell of violets conceals a cesspool after all. That sounds a bit like The PATRIOT Act, too. I've no idea about the Jeep.
So that brought me down to earth with a not unsuspected bump. And I read about their opinion on the appointment of eligible folk to serve on SCOTUS. They say (as quoted by Greg Sargent):
The sweet smell of violets conceals a cesspool after all. That sounds a bit like The PATRIOT Act, too. I've no idea about the Jeep.
So that brought me down to earth with a not unsuspected bump. And I read about their opinion on the appointment of eligible folk to serve on SCOTUS. They say (as quoted by Greg Sargent):
"We don’t think that the process of selecting a Supreme Court justice should include asking questions about a person’s personal sex life," Peter Sprigg, senior fellow at the Family Research Council, told me moments ago."But if a person does publicly identify as gay or lesbian, or particularly if a person has been involved with homosexual rights activism at any level, then there would have to be serious questions asked about whether he or she would impose a pro-gay ideology on the court."Sprigg added that homosexuality in and of itself would not be a "determinant" against the acceptability of the nominee.
Interesting.
Now change a couple of words in that:
Now change a couple of words in that:
"We don’t think that the process of selecting a Supreme Court justice should include asking questions about a person’s race," Peter Sprigg, senior fellow at the Family Research Council, told me moments ago."But if a person is black, or particularly if a person has been involved with black rights activism at any level, then there would have to be serious questions asked about whether he or she would impose a pro-black ideology on the court."Sprigg added that race in and of itself would not be a "determinant" against the acceptability of the nominee.
Interesting what just changing from one group to another does, isn't it?
Somehow I doubt that rabble rousing and lobbying against black folk is lawful in the USA nowadays. It certainly isn't lawful here in the UK.
Seems to be lawful to lobby against gay folks, though, over there.
Nasty people, all dressed up in fine robes.
Just like the Ku Klux Klan.
Somehow I doubt that rabble rousing and lobbying against black folk is lawful in the USA nowadays. It certainly isn't lawful here in the UK.
Seems to be lawful to lobby against gay folks, though, over there.
Nasty people, all dressed up in fine robes.
Just like the Ku Klux Klan.
Tim Trent is a Data & Privacy expert as well as an independent freelance marketing consultant based in Bracknell, UK. He is one of Europe's leading experts in compliance with data privacy regulations, and is in the forefront of implementing Permission Based Marketing. He publishes regular articles on Data Protection.
A regular contributor to Brody's Notes & Scribbles, more of Tim's opinions can be found at his website, Marketing by Permission. [Linked Here]
A regular contributor to Brody's Notes & Scribbles, more of Tim's opinions can be found at his website, Marketing by Permission. [Linked Here]
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment