American Morality Survey

I just took the American Morality Survey put up by a group called Public Advocate of the United States. They seem to be more than a little pre-occupied by the "homosexual lobby."

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Radical homosexuals claim YOU support same-sex marriage, special job rights and promotion of homosexuality in schools. Please fill out the survey below and let your voice be heard.

There were five questions. Each question could be answered by YES, NO, UNSURE. The first question was:

1. Should homosexuals receive special job rights and force businesses, schools, churches and even daycares to hire and advance homosexuals or face prosecution and multimillion-dollar lawsuits?

I answered no. Not because I think homosexuals should be discriminated against by businesses, schools, etc... but because I feel this is not the province of government. The only people who should have a say in such a decision are the businesses and schools, churches, daycares etc...

2. Do you support the use of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to fund homosexual "art", so called AIDS-awareness programs and homosexual research grants that are frequently funneled to political advocacy?

I answered no. No taxpayer dollars should be used to support any form of art. Now, if a community agrees to give a property tax break to a museum I would not be too offended. Nonetheless that should not be done either. If you think the museum deserves a tax break then stand up as the free person you think you are and donate money to that museum.

3. Should homosexuality be promoted in school as a healthy lifestyle choice, while information about the life threatening consequences are ignored?

Is this a leading question or what? First of all I don't think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. I didn't choose to be a heterosexual, I just am. Second there is nothing particularly life threatening about being a homosexual. (We're not taking about definitions of after-life; immortal soul here.) Promiscuous, unprotected anal sex is as "life-threatening" if you're a homosexual man or a heterosexual woman. Assuming the "life-threatening" clause refers to anal sex then what of homosexual women? What about their lifestyle choice is particularly "life-threatening?"

I think that schools should teach the values of the parents. One set of parents may want to teach their children that variations in sexuality are as normal and natural as variations in skin and hair color. They may even want to teach their children to be wary of intolerant adults who belittle and hurt their friends simply because their friends' sexuality doesn't match a particular standard. Other parents may want to teach their children that homosexuality is wrong and to shun homosexuals.

I answered yes because I want my children to view homosexuality as normal and natural. But I respect the right of a free people to choose differently than me.

4. Do you support same-sex "marriage" for homosexuals or "marriage-like" rights, like homosexuals being able to adopt children and raise them in their "lifestyle"?

I answered yes. Gay Rights advocates should not be promoting the term marriage as that has religious overtones. Let us not have this debate degenerate into one over semantics. Let's use the word "Civil Ceremony" instead with its "'marriage-like' rights."

5. Should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn traditional marriage between one man and one woman?

I'm unaware that the Supreme Court defined marriage as between one man and one woman. As I think that "marriage" is a term laden with religious overtones, let's not fight this battle. Let marriage be between one man and one woman.

Civil Ceremony marriages can be between one man and another man; one man and 15 women; 32 women and one male; any combination of adult males and females.

I answered No. The Supreme Court should NOT overturn the definition of marriage. Let the religious folks keep that term. The rest will have to be satisfied with the term "Civil Ceremony".