Three fundamental concerns are driving the formation of the new citizens organization:
I. The negative impact of special rights initiatives on all businesses and property owners, with a particularly negative impact on faith- based and faith-inspired businesses and property owners.
II. The negative impact of special rights initiatives on every citizen's constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.
III. The negative impact of the practice of homosexuality on the individuals who practice it and on the rest of the society.
The main multifaceted emphasis of the group is to defend Traditional Marriage as 'between one man and one woman', to respond to the controversy at the University of Notre Dame regarding homosexual activism at several levels, to respond to 'special rights for homosexuals' ordinances as they come forward in the Region and to facilitate help and ministry for those suffering from the ill effects of the homosexual lifestyle.
Message to South Bend Common Council Regarding Special Rights For Homosexuals & GLBT InitiativeApril 25, 2006
As you can see from the enclosed article regarding the CDC Warning issued late last Fall, the practice of homosexual sex is a key part of the rise in the spread of syphilis. To quote Dr. Valdiserri, "The cost to the healthcare system is $13 Billion a year". May I humbly submit that those are 13 Billion reasons not to try to give special status and therefore special rights to homosexuals and others practicing high risk sex.
Imagine the negative local effect on healthcare plans, already one of the most difficult challenges facing small businesses everywhere. A few days ago Councilwoman Pfiefer was quoted in the media as saying that the Council is not asking the public what they think about homosexuality but rather what the public thinks about discrimination. I respectfully disagree. Because the basis of adding sexual orientation is completely dependant on identifying the proposed special class by their sexual practices, those sexual practices are exactly what the Council is asking the community to decide on.
In the March 2006 Issue of Health Psychology, a study of the sex habits of rural gays revealed that 52% of those who answered a question on condom use with casual partners said they did not use condoms all of the time during casual sexual encounters and 30% indicated that they used drugs or alcohol during anal intercourse.
One of the worst consequences of giving special status to homosexuals is that the negative side effects of homosexual behavior is often not reported in order to not offend homosexuals and their supporters. The result of this artificial over sensitivity to the homosexual agenda is deadly for homosexuals themselves.
According to Frank York, "The life expectancy for homosexual men is 8 to 20 years less compared to heterosexual males." And "The risk of getting anal cancer soars by 4000% in those who engage in anal intercourse". Quoting Susan Brinkmann an investigative journalist, York reports that "The American public has been left largely in the dark about the extent of the medical problems associated with homosexual activity because of the influence of pro-homosexual political agendas. Some even believe they are being 'compassionate' by not disclosing vital health information for fear of offending homosexuals".
Since it is an unquestionable fact that the sexual practices in question are physically, and medically dangerous not to mention extremely costly to our already overwhelmed health insurance system, there are logical, legitimate reasons why citizens, business owners and property owners of all backgrounds would not want to reward unhealthy behavior with a special status and therefore special rights. This is not discrimination, it is medical fact. Yet this special status would be used as the basis of lawsuits intended to force all citizens to underwrite the cost of these dangerous sexual behaviors.
The growing coalition of citizens, business leaders, faith leaders, and Notre Dame Alumni known as: "NoSpecialRights.Net" urges the Council to abandon the misguided efforts to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the South Bend Human Rights Commission ordinance.
< Back >
CREATIVE SERVICES PROVIDED BY CREEKSIDE DESIGN