Sentences with phrase «homosexual rights»

She supported homosexual rights and the burgeoning hippie movement.

Tim Montgomerie valiantly tried to explain the sensible party policy that «will recognise marriage in the tax system and give fairness to same - sex couples» but for certain ConservativeHome contributors «Pink = gay = New Labour» and all that was bad about Tony Blair's homosexual rights agenda.

In terms of proving progressive credentials to the Left my guess is that the Conservative leadership would also point to the party's acceptance of homosexual rights, efforts to promote women and ethnic minority candidates and the significant emphasis that the party has placed on civil libertarianism and combating climate change.

Ghanaians are pouring out their outrage at the President's response to a question on homosexual rights posed to him by Al Jazeera's Jane Dutton.

The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) was set up in Scotland in 1974 by two activists of the Scottish Minorities group, which became the Scottish Homosexual Rights group.

JOPLIN, Mo. — Three years ago, the Molina family sat at their kitchen table and decided to take a moral stand: They would no longer patronize any company which had connection to abortions, homosexual rights, pornography or any other objectionable cause.

In getting the Supreme Court to overrule the people of Colorado on homosexual rights, and in pressing for same - sex marriage in Hawaii, Lambda «is using the courts and the Constitution to expand and protect our rights.»

Oregon has been a major battleground for this issue: a ballot measure sharply restricting homosexual rights lost heavily in 1992; a scaled - down version was defeated by several percentage points in this election.

«Homosexual rights campaigners have gained permission from the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales to hold Mass for gay parishioners.

In this way, Ruether helpfully positions the campaign for homosexual rights at the center of the cultural war in which our society is embroiled.

These sentiments, common place in the homosexual rights movement, could easily have been those of slaveholders and those involved in the slave trade, and as such they would strike us as ludicrous.

That is why we can not speak of homosexual rights.

• «The road from Stonewall, June 1969, to Stonewall, June 2011, was a trajectory of greater social acceptance of difference and nonconformity,» writes National Review's deputy managing editor on the magazine's website, describing the scene the night New York approved homosexual «marriage» at the famous gay bar where the riot that started the homosexual rights movement began.

Not exact matches

At least 24 of the 34 colleges and universities granted religious exemptions based on their beliefs about gender identity also received waivers allowing them to discriminate against gay and lesbian students and employees, citing faith - based prohibitions against homosexual sex, the Human Rights Campaign said.

«The state must recognize the full citizenship rights of inverts,» or homosexuals, an activist wrote in the year after the war.

Among the dozens of protest causes were transportation costs; Native Indian rights; government spending on the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics; corruption in state and local governments; and a bill in the Brazilian congress that would authorize psychologists to try and «cure» homosexuals.

Nevertheless, he decried, and actually seemed surprised by the fact that the jargon, presumptions, odor of sanctity, and especially the legal tools left over from the civil rights movement's glory years, now three generations past, are being used to sanction homosexual unions and in general make of non-heterosexuals yet another legally privileged group.

Homosexual people will be accepted as equal, full human beings, who have a legitimate claim on every right that both church and society have to offer any of us.

Laycock's hypothesis ripened into full - blown suspicion by June 2000 when Justice Stevens took the position that the free speech rights of the Boy Scouts were not violated by a state law requiring them to employ an avowed homosexual as an assistant scoutmaster.

The theological issues are far from resolved; but, judging from what has happened in Bloomington, even conservative Christians (though traditionally among those most opposed to gay civil rights) are learning that theological concerns need not blind any of us to the needs and rights of homosexuals as human beings.

Many argue that the legislation stipulating the rights of homosexual people not to feel harassed overrides the rights of others to free speech.

That's right: «believers who do not turn away from participating in homosexual intercourse are among those who will be excluded from God's kingdom.»

When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational eruptions increase.»

The homosexual person likewise can profoundly proclaim participatory theonomy: marital friendship is itself a great gift, not a right.

To grant a special set of rights to homosexual persons would work against those real interests that the State has in the marital friendship.

Homosexual persons have, of course, legitimate rights such as the right to work and the right to be treated fairly.

Very impressed that you will speak out against adultery by remarriage, or adulterous behavior, even more than you speak out against homosexual marriage and / or homosexual behavior... after all, the direct words of Jesus should carry far more impact than just the words of Paul or Moses, right?

They estimated a «human freedom index» for each country based on 1985 figures for forty different indicators among them the right to travel, freedom of religion, freedom from unlawful detention, independent press, homosexual activities between consenting adults.

Some may argue that it is right to follow homosexual feelings while some may argue it is wrong.

He was right to refuse to allow Ms Beattie and Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch to manipulate the agenda onto the homosexual agenda.

The Civil Partnership Act, passed in November 2004, raised homosexual relationships to the same status as marriage by granting the same rights to couples entering a civil partnership as to spouses entering marriage.

The people who hate and despise homosexuals would be infuriated if society sanctioned their existence and suggested that they were just like everybody else, by giving them the right to marry.

Somehow, active public discrimination against homosexuals and barring fellow human beings from marriage rights does not seem very loving or neighborly to me.

It is unacceptable that some modern Americans think it's alright to toss rules like these aside and yet still vehemently oppose marriage rights for homosexual couples.

So, (1) whatever position one takes on this matter, left or right, conservative or liberal, one should acknowledge that the law really does forbid homosexual sex between males but not between females.

I can not agree with the last paragraph unless it can be established that those against the rights of homosexuals are acting out of a personal arrogance.

Logically, it is difficult to see why the gay rights agenda should stop at the door of the church; churches have already been sued for violating the civil rights of members censured for practicing homosexual sodomy.

Only a sadistic God would create hundreds of thousands of humans to be inherently homosexual and then deny them the right to sexual intimacy.

Chief Justice Warren Burger concurred with Justice White that «to establish a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.»

On the contrary, there are standards of right and wrong within Christian tradition concerning human sexuality, based in human nature and biblical revelation, which are acceptable to homosexual and heterosexual alike, and which can form the moral basis of public policy.

(CNN)- Pope Francis said the church has the right to express its opinions but not to «interfere spiritually» in the lives of gays and lesbians, expanding on explosive comments he made in July about not judging homosexuals.

While many homosexuals are only asking for tolerance, the gay - rights movement is clearly engaged in a power struggle for the redesign of the social order.

Olson also invoked «fundamental rights» and was queried by Justice Scalia as to just exactly when it became unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage: 1791 with the Bill of Rights, 1868 with the 14th Amendment, or some other date, perhaps after the Court declined in 1971 to review a Minnesota Supreme Court decision upholding opposite - sex marriage requirerights» and was queried by Justice Scalia as to just exactly when it became unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage: 1791 with the Bill of Rights, 1868 with the 14th Amendment, or some other date, perhaps after the Court declined in 1971 to review a Minnesota Supreme Court decision upholding opposite - sex marriage requireRights, 1868 with the 14th Amendment, or some other date, perhaps after the Court declined in 1971 to review a Minnesota Supreme Court decision upholding opposite - sex marriage requirements?

Blacks in society, we are told, have a right to have role models in positions of leadership, and it therefore follows that homosexuals in the church have a right to role models in the form of openly gay popes, bishops, and priests.

Under ordinances forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, churches have been taken to court for refusing to hire a homosexual as church organist or as teacher in the church school, ministries to the poor have lost their funding when they refused to tolerate homosexual behavior within their programs, and a Jesuit university was required to give recognition and support to a gay rights group.

Bruni gets the number right; the 1990 landmark study by Bailey and Pillard reported a 52 % «probandwise concordance» for homosexual orientation among genetically identical sibling groups, but this does not mean what Bruni says it means.

But I would not be prepared to say, as the increasing quantities of homosexual propaganda want us to, that the one problem about homosexuals is their civil rights in the larger sense.

The trouble is that such encounters pit an indefensible and outmoded legalism against a propaganda line that says, basically, that there is no problem about homosexuals except that of civil rights.

This is historically inaccurate, demeaning to this provocative and orthodox way of relating to God, and it plays right into the hands of the homosexual apologists who want to carnalize such daring spiritual language.

Homosexual couples are pursueing the right to marry their partners, most of which do not have that right.