EMail from the Religious Right (Homosexuals have "Super" Rights)

"Text is taken directly from an excerpt of a press release by a religious-right group. The Texas Freedom Network does not edit the content for grammar or accuracy.

Date: May 16, 2007
From: Family Research Institute
By: Dr. Paul Cameron

Why Should Homosexuals Have Super Rights?
By Dr. Paul Cameron, Chairman of the Family Research Institute

Is it fair, is it just to give those who live parasitic lives ‘Super Rights?’ After all, it is the duty of every member of society to contribute to the commonweal. Yet the empirical evidence indicates that those who engage in homosexuality 1) contribute less and cost more in goods and services, 2) disproportionately disrupt social functioning, and 3) have few children while being more apt to harm them.1 Thus, homosexuals not only fail to ‘pay for their keep,’ but by their negative influence on children, cloud society’s future.

After all, it is the duty of every member of society to contribute to the commonweal. Yet the empirical evidence indicates that those who engage in homosexuality 1) contribute less and cost more in goods and services, 2) disproportionately disrupt social functioning, and 3) have few children while being more apt to harm them.(1) Thus, homosexuals not only fail to ‘pay for their keep,’ but by their negative influence on children, cloud society’s future.

Those who engage in homosexual sex seek what they term ‘gay rights.’ In reality they demand Super Rights. What do I mean by Super Rights? Being empowered to override other citizens’ unalienable rights (e.g., freedom of speech and association). These Super Rights (conferred by ‘non-discrimination,’ ‘hate crime,’ and ‘hate speech’ laws) allow homosexuals – if they so choose – to endanger or punish those who would exercise their associational rights to avoid them or protect their children from them. Thus, a principal knowing that homosexual teachers are more prone to have sex with pupils (empirical studies to date indicate that a male teacher who engages in homosexuality is the most apt to get sexually involved with pupils) may not want to hire a teacher who declares his affection for same-sex sex. But if the homosexual wants the job, his Super Rights trump the associational rights of the principal as well as the right of pupils not to experience extra risk (safety is part of their right to life). A couple renting out the other side of their duplex may not want to place their children at risk by renting to a gay couple. But if – even on a whim – the homosexuals want the duplex, their Super Rights trump the property and associational rights of the parents as well as their children’s right not to be exposed to potential molestation. The Super Rights of homosexuals also squelch others’ freedom of speech. Thus, a broadcaster may opine that same- sex sex is dangerous. But if a homosexual finds such speech ‘offensive’ his Super Rights trump the broadcaster’s freedom of speech and the broadcaster may be fined or imprisoned.

In addition to subsidizing those who engage in homosexuality, the right of ordinary citizens to happiness is diminished by homosexuals’ expropriation of beaches, restrooms, and rest areas for their sexual trysts. As if these violations of fairness were not enough, those fancying homosexuality run a large and growing ‘quasi-secret society’ to achieve their aims – aims often inimical to social order. Examples include the ‘shadow organization’ in the U.S. military, which provides illegal sexual contacts and career advantages to enlisted practitioners,(2) and homosexual ‘guides’ (e.g., Spartacus) that specify which rest areas, parks, and restrooms have been commandeered for gay sex.

Forcing dutiful citizens to financially support and also relinquish their unalienable rights to those who don’t carry their own weight while posing a risk to children ineluctably lowers the vitality of a society. As a result, while the sun still rises on those countries that give Super Rights to homosexuals, their declining birthrates assure that it will soon warm a barren landscape. So I ask again, is it fair, is it just, to give those who engage in homosexuality – a worthless as well as dangerous amusement – ‘Super Rights?’ In substantial part, the fate of Western Civilization hinges on the answer."
Arrgghhh

What a stream of drivelly bullshit. Does it actually cite the empirical evidence it claims exists?

How in the world do they figure I cost more in goods and services? If anything, I pay in goods and services. Being fabulous ain’t cheap, yo.

It’s so true. All it takes is one homosexual (or Super Citizen) to give the nod, and federal agents are swarming all over whomever offends their Super sensibilities. Even as we speak, ATF agents and their angry, barking dogs are hunting Dr. Paul Cameron through the remote murky swamp from which he thought he could safely send out this defiant warning against his Super superiors. He will be…punished.

The rantings of a crazy person. It doesn’t warrant discussion.

At the end of a sentence in the first paragraph there is a “1”, leading me to believe it was a reference not included in the OP. It would be interesting to see what study it linked to. My guess is that it’s a sound study, but the moron that wrote this drivel cherry-picked the data to conclude that “fags is teh suxxor.”

Cool!

I see they missed the provision in our super rights that says that straight men must sleep with us if we want them to and that refusal would result in execution.

I guess they didn’t think that part was as important.

When oh when will us lowly heteros reach the level of Superness that the gay community achieves?

That part about the condos is right! I know of so many instances when homosexual couples decide to buy condos - on a whim. They are so whimsical when it comes to condos!

"

Wow. I could only skim it because my eyes kept rolling back in my head and I couldn’t see.

I think I now have an acute case of cite-us-itis. Ow.

I actually found that bit funny. The premise early in the article is that gays don’t contribute and cost more in services and then follows up with the idea that we run around buying/renting homes on a whim. So which is it, we can’t pull our weight or we have all this extra money to throw around?

I realize logic won’t enter into this, but if homosexuals pay an equal share of taxes but have fewer children don’t they contribute more and cost less than straights?

Yes.

Don’t even get me into the tax-free status of religion. Hoo-ahhh- those are the real super-citizens.

You’re just not spending your money in the right way. You’re supposed to be contributing to the commonweal, making things better for everyone instead of doing what you want with your hard earned money.

In other words, you’re supposed to support Communism.

Oh yeah…and it’s never a ranch or a cape cod. Always with the condos. They’re so gay.

The writer probably wanted to emphasize that the homosexuals were trying to move in “on a whim” because it makes the issue sound insignificant. There might have been a few readers who would have been uncomfortable with the realization that what’s really being said is “we don’t want their kind living in our neighbourhood”.

Hey, how are those civil rights? “Super! Thanks for asking!”

Aside from the insane parts (of “Dr.” Cameron’s article), the basic argument is exactly the same bullshit used some decades ago by people like Jesse Helmes in regards to racial issues – that black people were demanding “special rights” (by wanting the same rights as everybody else). Why is it the really stupid arguments that get recycled?

I’ve been so selfish all these years, thank you for showing me the error of my ways brother.

Here- I think you dropped a few “m”'s in that post: mmm…condoms.

Wow. The only fact I could find in there is that gay people are having gay sex.