Take the following passage from a News & Observer article about NC's Amendment One:
Gaffney said she was not against homosexuals and has gay and lesbian friends. But she does not want them to have the right to marry.While those who use the 'I'm not against homosexuals -- I have lots of gay friends" line tend to believe they are doing the Christian thing by fighting marriage equality, what everyone else hears is this:
“If America doesn’t get back to God, we are going to definitely be lost,” she said.
"I am not against homosexuals, it's just that they're wicked, sinful, and hell-bound, and I believe their rights should be restricted."
Sorry, folks, but you're either with homosexuals or you're against them. You either accept the overwhelming scientific evidence which shows us that sexual orientation is determined by genetic factors, brain structure, and early uterine environment, or you simply ignore it and continue to cling to the Bronze Age view of homosexuality as abomination. (Those same folks believed epilepsy was caused by demons.)
And no matter how much you try to convince yourself and others that you have gay and lesbian friends despite your discriminatory views, you might want to reconsider just how they view your friendship. People usually don't think too highly of 'friends' who consider them to be abominations unworthy of equal rights under the law.
"I really like you, but you are part of why America is lost. You are leading us away from God, and I am working to ensure that your rights are limited."
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Stop trying to candy-coat your bigotry, folks. Free yourself. Admit it. You really, really don't like gay people and you want to see them suffer.
Tell us the truth. It's the Christian thing to do, right?
I would first like to say, as a Christian, that I do agree that Christians are often very hypocritical in their views on homosexuals.ReplyDelete
I would also like to add that to argue that homosexuality isn't wrong by saying that there is "overwhelming scientific evidence which shows us that sexual orientation is determined by genetic factors, brain structure, and early uterine environment" is pretty flawed. If that is true, which I'm not sure if it is, since you provided no evidence, you could also make that argument that we should support alcoholism, which is influenced by the same things.
Uh...most scientists do make that argument against alcoholism.Delete
That's the pointDelete
Sorry, folks, but you're either with alcoholics or you're against them. You either accept the overwhelming scientific evidence which shows us that alcoholism is determined by genetic factors, brain structure, and early uterine environment, or you simply ignore it and continue to cling to the Bronze Age view of alcoholism as a vice. (Those same folks believed epilepsy was caused by demons.) And no matter how much you try to convince yourself and others that you have alcoholic friends [and genuinely wish the best for them, hoping they'll overcome their weakness] despite your discriminatory views, you might want to reconsider just how they view your friendship. People usually don't think too highly of 'friends' who consider them to be caught up in things which are damaging them.Delete
There are several things wrong with the alcoholism analogy, actually.Delete
First, the general rule under the law is that you have to treat similarly situated people similarly unless you have a good reason not to.
With gay folks, the gender of their sexual partners is gender discrimination pretty pure and simple, and it is probably unrelated to any actual governmental interest.
Alcoholism - to the degree it DOESN'T fall under protections of ADA and other disability determinations - IS relevant for some decisions. If I'm hiring truck drivers, alcoholism is relevant to whether an individual can do a job. And even where it's NOT relevant, it's probably not a protected class.
Essentially, what I'm saying is that treating people differently based on gender is NOT a reasonable governmental power, and that's what discrimination against gays comes down to.
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Genesis 19:4-7
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them(Jesus paid the penalty). Leviticus 20:13 KJV
Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. Judges 19:22 KJV
Homosexuality/LGBT still condemned!
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:26-27
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,... 1 Corinthians 6:9
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 1:7
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;... 1 Timothy 1:9-10
And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:... 2 Peter 2:6-7
Let me also specify that I do not mean to say that homosexuality and alcoholism are similar in any way, but exactly the opposite, which is why the argument is flawed.ReplyDelete
Your attitudes are flawed. Wow. Have you ever done any reading, or talked to people, or stepped outside except to go to church?ReplyDelete
Gay is not negative like alcoholism. But it is biological. Both are proven. You need to liberate yourself from your gay bigotry. Jesus will be happier if you do.
That's exactly the argument I'm trying to make. Homosexuality is not negative, but alcoholism is. People expect alcoholics to fight their genes, but they don't expect homosexuals to do the same, and I'm not saying they should. That's why it's a bad argument. You're not comparing apples to apples.Delete
Dude, I'm not trying to argue against this article at all. I wholeheartedly agree that whether or not I agree with homosexuality has nothing to do with the fact that they should have the right to be married like everyone else. America is in no way a Christian nation and should therefore not force Christian beliefs on its residents.ReplyDelete
Again, I'm pointing out that the points he makes that "prove" that homosexuality is right also apply to something that most people would agree is wrong. Most people argue that alcoholism can be avoided even though it is caused by the same things as homosexuality.
I agree with Eric's conclusion, just not the arguments he used to get there.
My bad, man. Sorry, Friday, brain dead. You are right in what you say, I see your argument. I just don't think gay is a "lifestyle choice," that was my point.ReplyDelete
Apparently, some folks are not understanding the post. (I dont' know who (or how many) I'm addressing here, due to the anonymous postings, so I apologize if I appear to be lumping all responses together.)ReplyDelete
Let's get a few things sorted first: Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Alcoholism is "a chronic disease in which your body becomes dependent on alcohol." Sexual orientation is "a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attraction and a sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions." This is apples and oranges.
I would never compare homosexuality to alcoholism, and I understand from some of the comments above that this comparison wasn't intended to be an apples to apples comparison.
However, the topic of alcoholism allows me to make a comparison that might actually help illustrate my point. Do you believe that we should limit the rights of someone who is an alcoholic? Should alcoholics be allowed to marry?
The point of the post was to illustrate that those who are against the amendment should not pretend to truly care about homosexuals. For if they truly did, they would make an effort to understand how sexual orientation is determined, how efforts to alter one's sexual orientation almost always unsuccessful, and how being straight is exactly like being gay, in that gay people do fall in love with a significant other just the way heterosexuals do -- trying to fall in love with someone from the opposite sex is often as difficult as it might be for a heterosexual to fall in love with a same-sex partner. Sexual orientation is very much a part of who we are. To deny someone rights solely based on their natural traits is a) unethical, b) unconstitutional, and c) cruel.
As for the evidence that sexual orientation is determined by genetic factors, brain structure, and early uterine environment:
We limit people's rights only when their actions harm others. We do not limit people's rights based on their personal traits. If someone's natural traits lead them to commit a crime against someone, then there are laws in place to deal with that particular crime.
If a person's natural traits lead them to consensually marry and start a family with another adult, then, well, that's not a problem.
I think this all got away from the gist of the post, which was essentially to state: stop trying to pretend that you're not discriminating against people (or that you have nothing against them) when you propose legislation that will limit their rights. Limiting the rights of other citizens based on natural traits is the very definition of discrimination. And it has no place in our constitution.
This is a great post!
You're right: either you believe that people ought to have the same rights or you don't. Finding something that offends you and then hinging some folks' rights on THAT is pretty much the definition of discrimination.
I'd like to inquire about doing a sponsored blog post - about 150-300 words that talks a little bit about Immigration Visas and links back to our site http://rapidvisa.com. We are a immigration visa company and thought we might be a good fit for your readers/visitors on http://www.defshepherd.com
Here's a list of some blog post titles we've done in the past:
- How to Get Your Marriage Visa
- Things To Know Before Applying For Your Immigration Visa
- How to Get Help With Your Immigration Process
Our budget is around $15 for the post. Is this something you'd be open to?
Also we might be interested in a small banner ad if the price is right.
Our budget is $40/year - something like this:
Let me know if you'd be open to either or both of these.
Also if you have some other sites just send them over and we might be interested in doing a sponsored post on there as well!