Ms Bennett contined by asking:
"Can you really keep buggery between consenting male adults in the bedroom? she also stressed that granting homosexual rights would cause agitation for new penalties to address offences against same rights, she went on to say that Americans are grappling with whether to impose the controversial "hate crimes" legislation which would criminalize even a minister of religion saying that homosexual conduct is immoral.
"My observations are not in the least bit discriminatory, such labels cannot help us here."
She went on to address the matter of incest briefly pointing out that she feared that groups in the name of "inclusion" may also demand rights such as a group promoting carnal knowledge if grown men with female children in high school.
"Would we craft our laws to suit them just because they demand inclusion?"
"We must again be driven by higher ideals and maintain values and standards that are in keeping with the common good. Anything else will eventually take us down the road to oral chaos where anything goes and everything will be relative except, of course, the concept of relativity itself. I think you get my point.
She then listed figures for Buggery and Rape for the years 2000 - 2008
.......although there has been a slight dip in cases of rape since 2000 from 870 to 849 in 2008 there have been increases and decreases over the period which indicate that we are not really getting rid of the problem. The total number of rapes during the period is 7,463. This is alarming.
In the case of buggery there has been a slight increase. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of cases has risen from 33 to 36 with a high of 47 in 2006, making total of 316 cases over the period.
What a load of waffle. Seriously. People like Hyacinth Bennett.continue to equate homosexuality between consenting adults with things that are totally incongrous. Men with children bears no similarity, as the child lacks the capacity to give consent. This is equally true for sex with animals. There are also clear medical reasons to prohibit heterosexual incest, because of the potential for birth defects in the offsprings. The reasons for prohibiting these bear no resemblance to homosexuality, so the slippery slope argument is then null. So Ms. Bennett, what else have you got?
ReplyDelete