When did homosexuals become a race?

Abe

[troparion]

The best strategy to confuse people and cause them to doubt the necessity and validity of Prop 8 has been the continuous harping on racism by the "No on 8" gang. If one considers their latest ad, one can see how they abuse this issue to a shameful degree.

Let's think about this though…

When did homosexuals become a race, an ethnic group suffering generations of racism and discrimination? When did sodomy become the equivalent of nationhood? Or are they craftily comparing apples and oranges to get what they want? Is our pre-determined race/ethnicity equal to our lifestyle/sexual choices/urges? Even though there is nothing scientific or natural about saying one is born gay, liberals have continued to drill into people's heads that one is gay by birth, that there is such a thing as "gay identity," a political label produced by modern sexual rebels. Changes in laws and social policies to normalize unnatural sexual acts and desensitize the population about them are political decisions par excellence; they have nothing to do with objective science. Like swinging, pedophilia, and polygamy, this immoral lifestyle is leading the way toward reshaping, or destroying, social ideals and fulfilling the radical notion that God, morality, gender, traditional family, and taboos are all obstacles to true freedom and happiness, what the sex-revolution architect Marcuse called "polymorphic perversity," an agenda that almost engulfed the Soviet Union if it weren't for the far-sightedness of anti-Trotsky elements in Russia.

Legitimate fears of many churches, parents, adoption agencies, and social workers about this phenomenon are completely ignored, and the majority of people who don't see this movement or lifestyle as reflecting a healthy normal society are demonized and called "racists" or "bigots." This continues to amaze me, and while these same groups get sued and pushed around in the name of political correctness, the homoerotic activists continue to compare them to the Nazis or the KKK. The only institution that still reflects the will of society, which is the voting booth, was overturned a few months ago by four judges in a typical display of judicial tyranny. Comparisons were quickly made between this and the Supreme Court decisions that ended segregation. The reality is that segregation ended because of public opinion not because of judicial charity to the black community. The entire nation fought to end racism since John Brown's death more than a century ago. Much of that victory was the result of the Christian belief that all men are created equal in the image of God (Martin Luther King and others used that same idea again and again), not the Darwinian or Eugenic idea that some are more evolved or fit than others.

The court's move was calculated of course: this is a great time to use the political discontent with the Right to the advantage of liberal agendas. Attempts continue to mutate public opinion, control education and silence social dissidents. Churches that refuse to perform gay marriages will face lawsuits, and homosexuals have already hinted in that direction. What guarantees that they won't face the same fate as the boy scouts, publishers that refused dealing with gay and lesbian activist groups, or pastors that dared read bible verses on homosexuality in their own churches? Until they get their way, they will continue to say that such fears are unwarranted. These things are happening, and more is to come according to many activists' writings. Are we entering an age of despotism where certain groups gain super rights over all aspects of society?

All immoral regimes in history, especially atheistic revolutionary ones, deceived their populations by slapping moral labels on corrupt agendas. It is interesting how the "No on 8" argument is tailored to deceive fair-minded people. Society and religion are the natural legitimate sources for "who you can and cannot marry." There is nothing racist or discriminating about that. Radical activists can call natural childbirth unfair to women, who in the end bear all the burden of motherhood, but this "discrimination" is simply the manifestation of the normal and natural gender roles they keep rebelling against. One may not like natural facts or social roles, but there is nothing unfair or wrong about them in the eyes of sane people.

Marriage between relatives, more than two adults, and same sex couples cannot qualify by definition as "marriage." If we accept the criteria for one, we cannot escape accepting the others as "normal" and "teachable." All one has to do is hang around such activists to know how far they want to go, and this is only the first step to annihilate our "capitalist, male dominated, and Christian" society. Like rebelling teenagers, this guilt-ridden group seeks acceptance by forcing its own manufactured identity down the throats of everyone else. Truly, those who rebel against nature and God, "who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Romans 1:32).

[Deb]

Homosexuals became a race when they decided they were losing the morality argument and made the decision to change their movement to one of civil rights. It happened in an actual meeting of organized gay groups I watched on C-SPAN in the early 90s.

[MNDude]

homosexuals are soo gay!

[Steely Tom]

They’re a backward race.

Heh heh.

[muglywump]

Excellent read. Rational thought. I will show this to those who “feel” (liberals) instead of “think”.

[nufsed]

Everything is a race nowadays. People just yell racism for nationality, ethnicity etc.

I know this is troubling your mind, so allow me a brief explanation for some of the shouting.

Religion is a choice, you are free from discrimination based upon that choice. Do you see where this kind of thinking might lead other people to believe they have equal rights and cannot be discriminated upon based upon a legal choice they made?

Freedom and liberty are a slippery slope for those who cannot recognize it for people who make what they think are bad or immoral choices.

I recognize the rights of some religions which I think are misguided or weird. What choice is there? Maybe we should vote that they don't have certain rights because they are weird. I think we could get a majority.

[Responsibility2nd]

Link: http://troparion.blogspot.com/2008/11/when-did-homosexuals-become-race.html

_____________________________________

Good work Newbie.

[Regulator]

Outstanding writing. You have hit on a point that was forgotten from all the screaming of the 60's: discrimination was decried as wrong when it was the result of something the individual was born with. But for things that are choices, discrimination is certainly allowed. A society has a right to enact laws against millions of choices: the choice to be a professional thief, for instance. And the choice to engage in sexual conduct that is inimical to the society itself, if it so deems.

The violent homosexuals have no right to any behavior they deem fit. They were not born that way, no matter what they say. Even if they were, it would not have the weight of force against the society to equate it with whatever the society deems the norm.

The assertion of "equal protection" arguments are utterly specious, nothing more than strained legal theories which push the boundaries of the ambiguities in the English language.

We are not compelled as a society to recognize their deviance.

[Regulator]

Outstanding writing. You have hit on a point that was forgotten from all the screaming of the 60's: discrimination was decried as wrong when it was the result of something the individual was born with. But for things that are choices, discrimination is certainly allowed. A society has a right to enact laws against millions of choices: the choice to be a professional thief, for instance. And the choice to engage in sexual conduct that is inimical to the society itself, if it so deems.

The violent homosexuals have no right to any behavior they deem fit. They were not born that way, no matter what they say. Even if they were, it would not have the weight of force against the society to equate it with whatever the society deems the norm.

The assertion of "equal protection" arguments are utterly specious, nothing more than strained legal theories which push the boundaries of the ambiguities in the English language.

We are not compelled as a society to recognize their deviance.

[JimSEA]

When did homosexuals become a race

Of course it is a behavior. By the same token, Islam is a religion and, as such, accessible to anyone. Criticism of either should be protected speech but no longer is by all measures.

[massgopguy]

Yet they don’t demand to be counted in the Census. Maybe the revelation of how few they really are would diminish their grossly exaggerated political clout.

[yazoo]

I think blacks voted in great numbers for Prop 8 because they are insulted at any suggestion homosexuals are equal to blacks in terms of civil rights. Black people have suffered in the past and it was on account of something they could not control, their skin color. Homosexuality is an activity that many people find offensive and to equate it with race is absurd.

[Gemsbok]

First Biblical name of the race was Sodomites

[liberalism is suicide]

I prefer to call them sodomites,because you can’t come up with anything better than what God calls them! Perverts,fairies,tinkerbells,degenerates,fruitcakes and homosexuals are fitting terms. But call them “gay”? Not me!
Why legitimize their twisting of a perfectly good English word?

[manc]

I just talked to a black woman on the phone when I called the Jacksonville police.
I told her about how homosexuals want to spread their hatred and civil disobedience to other parts of the country and they have JAX mentioned

She said no way will they come to her area and no way will they be allowed to demonstrate outside her church as the brothers will sort them out never mind the police.
she said they will not get away here with what they have been doing in CA either.

I would love to see these homo bullies try and go to the black church or a mosque.
LOL
can just imagine them going to a black church in Compton or the rural MS

She then went on about how homosexuals try to align themselves with the black struggle and she said that everyone she knows who is black is insulted by that. She was telling me that they are not connected and that it drives the black community even more against homosexuals when they use the black struggle

Homosexuals are on their own , a very small % of the population. Maybe one day they will actually grow up and realise we have laws which have to be followed and they have no case.
Until then we’ll just keep fighting them at every turn and never back down in person or on TV/internet/media

[Gemsbok]

Ditto to that. Throughout the South, Black church-goers will not tolerate their houses of worship publicly mocked and denigrated.

I doubt the GLBT population is stupid enough to try that.

if they go to JAX .ATL .ORL. MPH ,NASH. Charlotte, or any other city they will likely attack white churches.

[manc]

they’ll find a small white church with a small congregation with just a few old people there.

just exactly what do they think they will achieve, not one is going to change a state constitution, this is all based on sex and what they like to be with during sex.

I swear this just forces my view that they are mentally disturbed what with the way they are acting now.

I’ve always thought of homo men as immature because of how they try to get attention and how they act but now it seems to be more than just being immature.

Anyway I’m off to my oldest birthday party and then take him shooting at the range in JAX.
These freaks will turn up in JAX with about 10 people holding signs and guess what?

I have informed the police and the sheriffs belt about them and how they plan to spread their violence plus I gave them the website they are using to organise.

The police are now looking at them website and have said that if they try anything here they will arrest and do them for hate crimes.

Remember here in north Florida we are still in the bible belt and there are a lot of young people too who will not back down.
Even the woman at the police said a few things about them and it was not good for them

[troparion]

I see your point. Allow me to rant a bit though.

1- I think religious and sexual choices are completely different in essence, unless one believes that his/her sexuality is communal in nature (well, some do think so). Marriage, however, is a social institution closely linked to religion. Civil marriage is just a civil union at heart, and wouldn't truly qualify as marriage in the traditional sense - it was created to push out religion and its requirements at a time when couples could not live together and have children while unmarried; it was just socially unacceptable.

2- Society has every right to ban or oppose a religion that allows for acts that do not appeal to the general moral sense adhered to by its members. Religions that allow for animal sacrifices, child marriage, polygamy... etc are banned in our culture. Although such practices are not strange to many cultures, we view them as evil, but why? I think once we redefine our society outside a Judeo-Christian framework we open the door for any interpretation of morality and social standards. One doesn't have to be religious to accept moral standards that society sets for its members (P. Rieff explains that well in Triumph of the Theraputic). The sky is the limit once liberalism is unleashed on that front. This is why our constitution acknowledges a “Creator” as a source of moral law and basic rights in our society.

3- If you look closely at what gay marriage activists have been writing, you will find that there is a reason why they do not want the state to stay out of marriage all together (thus leaving it up to the churches, since marriage is originally a religious institution, to decide who can marry and who can't). It goes against their anti-culture agenda. They don't want to seperate church from state, but like the New Atheists (they overlap) they want the state to dominate and end the church. Thank you for commentting.

[troparion]

One thing though... Sodom was a city not an ethnic group, and the term “Sodomy” was never used in the Bible to refer to homosexuals. The act itself is described in Lev. and Romans 1. Europeans later coined the term based on Genesis 19. Equally, one can't claim San Fransicans to be a race just because so many homosexuals live in that city of course. In Semitic languages, like Hebrew, Aramaic or Arabic, homosexuals are refered to at “Lotians,” since the incident is related to the life of Lot even though the man was not one of them.