Author Topic: No luck in ND for boys who like boys or girls who like girls...  (Read 4447 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sal Atticum

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7121
  • Karma: 38
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota
...or boys who like boys and girls equally, or girls who like boys and girls equally, or people who like lots of people, or people who totally don't get the whole 'liking other people' thing.

Quote
TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY: SB 2278: Don’t force citizens to shun morality
Janne Myrdal, Park River, N.D.
Published Saturday, February 07, 2009
PARK RIVER, N.D. — Concerned Women For America of North Dakota fails to see the evidence that sexual orientation meets the criteria set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court defining human rights.

The court has devised a three-part test to determine whether a class of persons qualifies as a true minority: They must be defined by an immutable characteristic (unchangeable, such as skin color), they must be economically deprived, and they must suffer from a history of discrimination and political powerlessness.

Sexual orientation fits into none of these categories. Instead, the facts show that sexual behavior is changeable, that those who practice nontraditional sexual preference are largely affluent and that their activists represent one of the most powerful lobbies in the world per capita.

Special rights historically have been afforded to certain groups in order to make sure that individuals are not discriminated against because of immutable characteristics. North Dakota law already protects these characteristics. Further, the bill has no exemptions for those with personal convictions, thus forcing individuals to accept and support sexual behaviors with which they disagree.

SB2278 actually creates discrimination. In general, when “sexual orientation” is added to a nondiscrimination code, it is a giant step toward the adoption of policies that discriminate against people with traditional views of morality. Indeed, if we look closely at the term “sexual orientation” itself, it is really a radical challenge to the beliefs of all major religious faiths because it attacks the notion that sexual behavior has moral dimensions.

According to the therapeutic manual of the American Psychiatric Association, there are at least 20 distinctive sexual variations of “sexual orientation” and perhaps many more. Because the underlying concept of “sexual orientation” is that all sexual behavior is equally valid, there are no good choices or bad choices, just inclinations.

Private businesses and organizations should not be forced by the state to set aside their moral or religious principles, based upon someone’s proposed rights because of the individual’s sexual behavior.

Other states that have passed similar laws have faced numerous lawsuits, including some filed by individuals claiming the right to use a restroom or other public space reserved for the opposite sex.

Both federal and North Dakota law already prohibits sex discrimination and sexual harassment. If SB 2278 becomes law, it will communicate to North Dakotans that the political agenda of a few is more important than the time-honored and cherished First Amendment principles upon which our country was founded.

Should sexual preference now trump the rights of free speech and freedom of religion?

If we allow sexual preference to become a matter of laws and policies, it will reach our workplaces, our schools, our families, our children, our youth and even our houses of worship to the great detriment of our society. This surely will challenge the common sense, strength of character and founding principles this great nation and state were built on.

The liberties we now all enjoy, regardless of sexual orientation, will stand defenseless against this discriminatory law. It will hurt our society, removing all moral boundaries and allowing further sexualization of our public square

Allow us also to state that it should be the personal duty of all citizens to behave in such respectful manner toward fellow citizens, without being compelled or directed by law, so as to afford all the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We should all strive to behave so.

Myrdal is state director of Concerned Women For America of North Dakota. This column is adapted from her testimony against SB 2278 to a North Dakota Senate committee.

Janne Myrdal, you need less hatred in your life.  If you'd like to talk about this, you can probably figure out where to find me.  I'll be the one supporting all those non-heterosexuals who choose to live life the way they want, not the way someone else thinks they should.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 06:35:07 PM by Sal Atticum »
JUST EXTRA POLISH. I DO SOME WORK WITH EXCELL SO I KEEP THE CAPS LOCK ON :-P

Offline pmp6nl

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5621
  • Karma: 113
  • Gender: Male
    • Campus Dakota.com
Re: No luck in ND for boys who like boys or girls who like girls...
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2009, 03:09:43 PM »
Wow, that is sad.  I guess she forgets when women were discriminated against or people of certain races.  It is about supporting equality for all people.  It is sad that sexual orientation is not already covered by laws.

I am just surprised that she didnt cite more religious things... since when does religious beliefs of some allow them to over ride the rights of others... shame on those that think so.
CampusDakota.com

Offline Plantains

  • I've succumbed to corporate level marketing ploys.
  • UND
  • *
  • Posts: 2868
  • Karma: 18
  • Gender: Male
  • No you are the one that is stupid!
Re: No luck in ND for boys who like boys or girls who like girls...
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2009, 07:46:18 PM »
The thing that I can't understand is... how can gay rights be a problem?

Why do people feel threatened by homosexuality? I realize there are highly controversial topics here... but really... don't we have bigger fish to fry? At the very least isn't it time we "let it go" to waste (and I do mean waste) our energy on some other issue?

The thing with this article is that its sort of confusing to me. I see a point that they're not wanting to have sexual preference as a "minority factor" because people could simply check "homosexual" on the paperwork and there's no way to "test" that. I don't think they should be held to a different yardstick than anyone else... but I feel that way about all races as well. If people want equality... you need to have 100%, not some are more equal than others.

Maybe I missed something here...?
Alaska Unicyclist: if you ban me, i'll set your complex on fire.... just a heads up

 

With Quick-Reply you can write a post when viewing a topic without loading a new page. You can still use bulletin board code and smileys as you would in a normal post.

Name: Email:
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image
Type the letters shown in the picture:
What color is an apple, it starts with an r?:
What is 5 plus 5?:
Which Dakota has the city of Fargo:

anything
realistic