Racism - Women's Sufferage - Ethnic Discrimination - Homosexuality
Which of the above does not fit? Homosexuality.
Homosexual activists, and someone who wrote a comment in this blog, claim that homosexuals are in the same position as those who have been distriminated against because of their race, sex or national origin. In particular they try to correlate racism and opposition to gay marriage.
What an insult to black Americans!
Homosexuals have not been discriminated against as blacks have - kept as slaves, denied education, and prevented from participating in the economic prosperity of America. The truth is, homosexuals, in general, are a very economically well-off group. They do much better economically than the average American. They have never been enslaved. They have never been denied the same education as every other Amreican. They have never been denied freedom of movement or speech (ie. they've never been slaves). They have never been denied the right to vote. They never were oppressed as the Irish and Chinese were.
Homosexuals have the same rights as every American. They have the same right to marriage as every American has (one man and one woman). Claiming a committed, loving relationship with another person does not establish a right to marriage. Even the Greeks, who had long-term, committed homosexual relationships (read The Life of Greece by Will Durant), did not honor those relationships through marriage.
Imagine you have a six year old son who loves trucks. He loves trucks more than anything else. One day he says to you, "Dad, I'm going to stand in the middle of I-80 and get a close look at the trucks."
How do you respond? Do you say fine, that since he really loves trucks, and his love overrules everything else, he can go ahead and stand in the freeway? No way! No matter how great his love is, standing in the middle of the freeway is wrong.
Getting back to racism and homosexuality. There is a another huge difference. Blacks can not change their skin color. Homosexuals can change. Homosexuality is not a trait someone has. Homosexuality is a behavior/habit that can be changed. Visit this web site:
http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html
Is this something new we've just learned? No. We've known homosexuality can be cured for more than ten years. It's just that this is not something the media wants available as generally known, puplic knowledge. Take a look at a web page about the book "Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality". Take a look at the copyright date at the bottom of the page. It's 1991. Also note that in the quote from the book Dr. Nicolosi says he has cured 100 homosexuals. I've heard Dr. Nicolosi speak, and that number is now near 1000.
Homosexual activists, and someone who wrote a comment in this blog, claim that homosexuals are in the same position as those who have been distriminated against because of their race, sex or national origin. In particular they try to correlate racism and opposition to gay marriage.
What an insult to black Americans!
Homosexuals have not been discriminated against as blacks have - kept as slaves, denied education, and prevented from participating in the economic prosperity of America. The truth is, homosexuals, in general, are a very economically well-off group. They do much better economically than the average American. They have never been enslaved. They have never been denied the same education as every other Amreican. They have never been denied freedom of movement or speech (ie. they've never been slaves). They have never been denied the right to vote. They never were oppressed as the Irish and Chinese were.
Homosexuals have the same rights as every American. They have the same right to marriage as every American has (one man and one woman). Claiming a committed, loving relationship with another person does not establish a right to marriage. Even the Greeks, who had long-term, committed homosexual relationships (read The Life of Greece by Will Durant), did not honor those relationships through marriage.
Imagine you have a six year old son who loves trucks. He loves trucks more than anything else. One day he says to you, "Dad, I'm going to stand in the middle of I-80 and get a close look at the trucks."
How do you respond? Do you say fine, that since he really loves trucks, and his love overrules everything else, he can go ahead and stand in the freeway? No way! No matter how great his love is, standing in the middle of the freeway is wrong.
Getting back to racism and homosexuality. There is a another huge difference. Blacks can not change their skin color. Homosexuals can change. Homosexuality is not a trait someone has. Homosexuality is a behavior/habit that can be changed. Visit this web site:
http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html
Is this something new we've just learned? No. We've known homosexuality can be cured for more than ten years. It's just that this is not something the media wants available as generally known, puplic knowledge. Take a look at a web page about the book "Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality". Take a look at the copyright date at the bottom of the page. It's 1991. Also note that in the quote from the book Dr. Nicolosi says he has cured 100 homosexuals. I've heard Dr. Nicolosi speak, and that number is now near 1000.
posted by BrickBalloon
Read This Post In Our: Christianity in America Blog Archive
9 Comments:
Out of interest, how many black americans were insulted by that post? Did you ask one black person's opinion before you decided to become their self-appointed spokesperson?
Are you confident that you can pick up where Martin Luther King left off? I suspect people will see right through your transparent ploy to use black american suffering to further your personal argument. You are as self-serving as they come.
The disdain you have for gays is not universal. If you want to recruit people to your way of thinking you'll probably have to give them a bit more intellectual credit than you currently do.
I'd love to hear from any Black Americans who feel insulted by this blog. They are welcome here.
Yes, I've talked to many Black Americans about this--from an attorney who sat next to me in an evening class to people I don't know but happened to have an opportunity to talk with. Without exception they have agreed that equating "gay rights" with the Civil Rights Movement is an insult to them and their heritage. I'm sure there are some blacks who disagree with this. That's our nature as human beings, we don't always agree.
A black church leader, Bishop Wellington Boone, stated it well. He said homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue, because he cannot "become white," but many people have left the homosexual lifestyle.
Once again a supporter of homosexual activism has had to resort to name-calling as the only defense of their position. Your comment did not address the issue in any way. The issue being: how can you equate a genetic trait (black skin) that can not be changed with a behavior that can be changed? The answer is, you can't.
Um.. no, the issue is that you think it's ok to deny people rights based on an arbitrary classification. In this case it's their sexuality.
Oppression of any group is not justifiable, although you seem to think it is. Let's not lose sight of the fact that what you are advocating is a law which prevents people from having the right to marry because of their sexuality.
I think that is directly comparable with removing other rights via arbitrary discrimination, including but not limited to discrimination based on skin color. That you and black people you've spoken to see that as an insult to civil rights does not change the agenda you are pushing, or lend it any more validity.
Btw: If name-calling is a problem for you, why do you refer to me as a gay activist? Remind me of the bit where I said I stood for homosexuality. I don't care one way or the other about people's sexuality. As far as I'm concerned it's a personal decision everyone makes, perhaps more than once.
What the world doesn't need is people like you inciting judgement, and the often violent follow-on effects of that. I'm going to re-state this since you are just not getting it. Who cares if gays want to marry? Only you from your fixated moral standpoint.
You start off with a major misstatement. No one is trying to deny those with homosexual desires a right. There is no right to same-sex marriage. It does not exist. Homosexuals already have ALL of the same rights as anyone else. They have the same right to marriage as anyone else--they may marry one person (at a time) of the opposite sex. That's what marriage is.
There are many other relationships that are not included in marriage. For example, slose relatives may not marry, no matter how great their love. Children may not marry. Two men and two women may not be joined in one marriage. There is no oppression of homosexuals. There is nothing being taken away from homosexuals. For the entire history of civilization marriage between homosexual has never existed. How can something be taken away that has never existed?
What is going on is that you are trying to pervert the discussion using emotionally loaded negative terms (deny people their rights, oppression, etc.) and lies. I'm not saying you are a liar, but some of what you wrote simply is not true.
I never call anyone a gay activist. However, I may have implied that your actions and what you've said put you in with homosexual activists. You may not be an activist--you may be just mindlessly passing on things you've heard others say. (I don't think that's the case, as you seem above average intelligent.) Your initial, and continued attempts at personal character assignation are SOP for homosexual activists. Your distortion of the truth--for example in the above comment--(I'm not saying you are a liar) are SOP for homosexual activists. Your support for silencing the opposition through vandalism and destruction instead of condemning them are SOP for homosexual activists. Your attempts to persuade through emotionalism and emotionally loaded words--both negative and positive--instead of factual discussion are SOP for homosexual activists. I really don't know any other way to say this: if walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…
Please feel free to provide similar backup for all of the names you've called me. You can know a lot more about me than I know about you as I've written everything on this blog, as well as everything on www.evangelical.us and www.missiontoamerica.org.
Your name-calling (attempts at character assignation) don't bother me, but other than fascism you have not even attempted to backed up any of them with any facts, or even opinion. That puts them in the category of empty name-calling, and something to be ignored. I've posted my response to your argument that myself and Christians are fascists. Can you go through the points that define fascism, as I have for Christians and thus myself, and categorically show how you do not fit any of them?
Since you felt the need to restate your question, I'll be glad to restate my answer. I care, as do the majority of others who are impacted by this. We care because what you are advocating is exactly what you call wrong--the taking away of a person's right. Everyone currently has the right to enter into a marriage relationship--one man and one woman. Homosexual activists and you, want to take away that right by redefining marriage into something different than it is. By making marriage into something that is just a convenient, self-centered way to get government benefits.
So if gays never had the right to marry, continuing to deny them that right is not really opression.
I hate to have to be the one to point this out to you, but your statement begs the question.
British women never had the right to vote. American blacks never had the right to vote, or own property. Until recently some african blacks never had the right to vote, own property, or even education.
If that was not opression, then I wonder what all the fuss was about?
Let me see if I understand what you are saying: If someone is denied something they want, then that person is being oppressed.
There are three important points:
1. Are we oppressing a 95 year old who does not see well, by taking away their driver's license. No, that person does not fit the minimum conditions for driving.
In the same way a homosexual marriage does not meet the minimum requirements for marriage - one mand and one woman.
2. In addition, the rights of the elderly man above--just like woman's right to vote, and the American black's rights to vote, own property, and have an education--are rights that rest in the individual. Individual woman have the right to vote, if they meet the minimum requirements for having that right--for example, not being a felon. As a class, women do not have the right to vote, and neither do men.
3. When women gained the right to vote, they gained the same right as everyone else (men) already had.
When blacks gained the right to vote, own property and to have an education, they gained the same right as everyone else.
When making comparisons with woman's sufferage or black slavery, homosexual marriage fails on all three criteria.
1. Homosexual marriage does not meet the minimum requirements of marriage, one man and one woman. It is normal to have things we can do and things we can not do.
Take your example: woman does not have the right to vote under all circumstances. A woman who lives in Arizona may vote in Arizona. But she may not vote in Kentucky. If she is in Kentucky on election day, she does not meet the minimum requirements for voting--she must be a resident of Kentucky. No matter how much she loves voting... no matter how much she wants to vote... she still has to meet those minimum standards.
2. Individual homosexuals have the right to marry, just like everybody else. No person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, has ever had the legal right to marry any willing partner just because they are a member of a certain class of people. They must individually meet the same minimum requirements as everyone else - be of a certain minimum age, for example. Another minimum requirement every individual must meet isthat of one man marrying one woman.
3. To create homosexual marriage will be creating something no one has had before. In your examples women and blacks justifiably received rights that already existed for everyone else. In the case of homosexual marriage, this is a "right" that HAS NEVER existed.
There just is no comparison with women or blacks.
There is no oppression. Homosexuals already have the same rights as everyone else. The truth is that homosexuals are trying to take marriage away from everyone else. The only ones who will lose something are those in traditional marriages. They will lose marriage should homosexual marriage become accepted.
This seems to me to be a clear cut issue, with a simple way to decide what is right. What are the benefits and drawbacks to civilization for each option?
Marriage in its Current Form:
Benefits: Provides a positive framework in which to raise the next generation, providing for the continuation of civilization.
Men/women married couples have fewer mental health and physical health problems, and are generally happier than those who are unmarried.
Drawbacks: none
Gay Marriage:
Benefits: None for civilization. The benefits of gay marriage are for the individuals, not society in general.
Drawbacks: many. Here are a few...
-- Promotes homosexual lifestyle, a lifestyle with greater metal health problems and greater physical health problems. Results in an increased medical cost on civilization as a whole.
-- Gay "unions" have a higher level of domestic violence, resulting in a greater cost to civilization as a whole.
-- Gay marriage changes marriage to be a legal arrangement used to get benefits. Experience in other countries has shown this decreases the value of marriage such that many more children are born outside marriage and are not properly cared for. The result is a huge cost to civilization as the whole.
Gay marriage makes no sense. To approve gay marriage is leading us down the path of self-centered decadence that led to the destruction of the Roman Empire.
What's your source(s) for the comparison? I'm particularly interested in the alleged increase in danger of living a homosexual lifestyle.
I'd recommend the following book:
Straight & Narrow?: Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate By: Thomas Schmidt
As a more easily accessible resource, one of the best scientifically-based online summaries, with sources identified, is at:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1
Althought not about health effects, an excellent cassette that discusses the causes of homosexuality is:
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=3897&pid=0&sid=0
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home